• 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.

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,672
545
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
They are not "all about single mothers". I know you can't read something other than your approved propaganda. Yes. there is some info there about single mothers. The articles also clearly show the psychological problems of a child not having a father. No. not that they don't have a second mother, they don't have a FATHER. I know making that connection is hard for you because a peer-reviewed pro-LGBT article hasn't approved it for you.

Where did I say a child with gay parents will be gay with an older man? I don't believe I did. However, since you brought it up, I would venture to say their sexuality is more likely to be affected by living in a different environment like that. Children are highly impressionable. We constantly see how many children end up trans because of their activist parents (usually moms).

There isn't a lack of parents wanting to adopt babies.

Kids stuck in foster care and orphanages are there because people don't want to adopt 10 year olds, unless you believe same sex couples have a soft spot for older kids I don't think this issue would be solved.

That said I have nothing against same sex couples adopting a kid, but if a religious agencie doesn't want to deal with them then fine, there non religious adopting agencies.
Spot on. As is the theme of what I started with. These kids are unfortunately very troubled because they do not have the family structure they need. Putting them into any home often presents a huge challenge. Suddenly, two loving mothers are going to be what makes a young child stop rebelling. Clearly some people were born yesterday.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
"You know what's awful? Agencies using their beliefs as an excuse to deny people. You know what we should do? Make up our own special rules to rub it in their faces"

Bigbrain comments on GAF today.
Did you learn to read with a cereal box?
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Lamel

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
nah it is you who is archaic and out of touch

most women who don't have kids will end up hateful, miserable, resentful
Sounding like an Incel


Did you know that more than 75 studies were done?

Of course not, because you and Africaking have no interest in not only researching the opposition, but even research by allies that say "inconclusive".

You nitpick links based on one page and act like that's all the studies, then don't even check the sources yourself because some of those wiki links don't even work or have false sources.

If you take that stick out your ass and reduce your bias, you can find many things in a few minutes of searching.

Not to mention gay men don't represent all the LGBT, but nitpicking is what you've all been doing so no surprise there.
Cheap talk coming from someone who has yet to provide a single source. Go back to trolling
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract
May 22, 2018
5,780
5,732
650
The agencies do not believe homosexual families are in the best interests of the children's health and well being.

You are simply asking "but why don't these religious agencies go against their beliefs and adhere to secular opinion?" and the answer should be obvious.
Then they should no longer be able to operate. If they can't set aside their religious dogma and prejudice for the good of the children in their care then they aren't qualified to care for the children in the first place.
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,164
11,957
1,010
Then they should no longer be able to operate. If they can't set aside their religious dogma and prejudice for the good of the children in their care then they aren't qualified to care for the children in the first place.
I look forward to you setting aside dogma for the good of others.
But, of course, "It's OK when we do it".
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
41,627
18,921
1,395
The Pentagon
derp u muszt be an incel who wants to kapt da womens in the kitchens

nope, the literature is pretty clear on this stuff you dopey fucks

most women need children in their lives, most nest and nurture, most burn outta careers in their forties with huge regrets

exceptions don't break the rules

 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: King of Foxes

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,350
32,060
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Then they should no longer be able to operate. If they can't set aside their religious dogma and prejudice for the good of the children in their care then they aren't qualified to care for the children in the first place.
Who determines whether or not the religious agencies are operating for "good of the children"? :pie_thinking:

I love how "think of the children" is actually being used to disparage the few agencies that actually step up and provide a future for these kids. Leave it to the ideologues to paint self-sacrificing organizations as the real bad guys.
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,689
2,033
420
I think the problem that people have with that is that these religious agencies shouldn't be placing their own beliefs above the health and well being of the children who are placed in their care. The agencies should be concerned about finding parents for their kids and that's it. Religious dogma and the prejudice that comes with it should not factor in at all in any way whatsoever.
You think the kids would be better of without these religious agencies?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,745
3,052
960
Sounding like an Incel




Cheap talk coming from someone who has yet to provide a single source. Go back to trolling
You haven't proven there's a consensus, you posted a Wikipedia article not containing any alternate viewpoints for your own benefit because you can't actually find a reliable source. You also act like there are only 70 studies, which is false, so you are saying you have the facts, but your evidence relies on sourcing incomplete information.

Tell me, does that even sound like it makes sense?
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
You haven't proven there's a consensus, you posted a Wikipedia article not containing any alternate viewpoints for your own benefit because you can't actually find a reliable source. You also act like there are only 70 studies, which is false, so you are saying you have the facts, but your evidence relies on sourcing incomplete information.

Tell me, does that even sound like it makes sense?
Still no sources I see.

Come back when you have something to show.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
Did you know that more than 75 studies were done?

Of course not, because you and Africaking have no interest in not only researching the opposition, but even research by allies that say "inconclusive".

You nitpick links based on one page and act like that's all the studies, then don't even check the sources yourself because some of those wiki links don't even work or have false sources.

If you take that stick out your ass and reduce your bias, you can find many things in a few minutes of searching.

Not to mention gay men don't represent all the LGBT, but nitpicking is what you've all been doing so no surprise there.
I did do research, and I quoted my sources. Maybe you should do the same.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
They are not "all about single mothers"
The articles are about single moms without a father figure. A gay couple could have that father figure. The studies aren't disproving LGBT parents' ability to raise kids--they're proving that not having a father figure is detrimental.

Where did I say a child with gay parents will be gay with an older man? I don't believe I did.
A child without a father is far more likely to crave male attention in an unhealthy way.
Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant but that's what I thought you were implying.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,981
2,760
555
USA
Any gay couple looking to adopt has no shortage of agencies not only willing to place children with them, but to eagerly do so with an abundance of forced, self-righteous enthusiasm.

This should not be a back door to changing religious dogma. If you want the state to thought police and punish religious organizations, taxfunded or not, that you personally don't like, then you are an evil person who does not belong in a free society, much less participating in our free elections. Please just stop and move somewhere that better aligns with your insatiable totalitarian urges.

This entire episode is a testament to the abysmal state of civics education in this country and the utter shamelessness of the incrementalist left.
 
Jan 9, 2018
1,000
1,569
415
OptimusApex OptimusApex

Stop trying to make the morality of parenting and sexuality a technocratic issue. It is truly mindblowing that you think the matter of whether children should be around certain sexual situations or given as dependents to certain arrangements can be solved by extrinsic studies of any kind, and certainly not the ones carried out by today's entirely bunk field of quantitative social pseudo-sciences.

It's also a joke that this is what constitutes "progressive" thinking today: technocratic reduction of human life, and replacing all organic human realities & given relationships with contractual ones brought into existence solely by court systems. How progressive and wonderful that many states are for instance now replacing "mother" & "father" with parent 1/2 (sometimes 3) on documents, because the erasure of reality is now a good thing... so long as it pushes further along the agenda of atomizing & consumer-izing human life, by downplaying all given, unchosen realities.

People don't object to same-sex parenting because they don't think any two random individuals could manage the basics of childcare on a practical level. They object because it's at the core of human reality to have a relationship with the two people who brought you into being, and in whom you will always share something, even if it takes you half your life to figure out why they hold the key to the mystery of all your peculiarities, weaknesses, and strengths. You are quite literally one flesh woven out of two prior lives, and their relationship to each other--the only reason you ever came to exist, literally the only difference between this universe and one that never needed your life as part of its story--has an enormous impact on shaping your sense of who you are, and being able to receive your life with gratitude, pass that on to another generation, etc.

Yeah, sometimes your parents die, or other terrible things happen, like separations. But those are always acts of violence and tragedy, without exception. The best we can do with lost children who end up in homes is to find a new home that can receive them in the same way their own parents should have or could have, but that means carrying forward the analogy as much as possible. It is clearly ideal that the new family be one that either has biological children of its own or, secondarily, one that at least could have them, which means a man and woman committed to each other. They're stepping into replacing that definite and specific pair of roles for you, trying to heal those 2 permanent wounds--they're not being called into some generic project of providing for your essential needs.

We also can't keep forgiving the growing reality that same-sex couples have been opting more and more for options like surrogacy and obtaining sperm etc--in other words, intentionally creating children who won't know their one of their parents, which should be recognized and prosecuted as an enormous act of violence upon the human social body. This is happening a great deal with high-profile and high-earning same-sex couples, and does not appear related to adoption in any way. In fact, it's pretty clear that adoption is seen as lesser, whereas loosening up the reality of reproduction and replacing it with purely technological and contractual arrangements for creating children is the goal. And it is a goal one can strongly reject without a single laughable "quantitative social science" study from another grad student who thinks p-values on survey data can solve the question of whether creating motherless / fatherless children is abuse. It is. Always, in every case.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Then they should no longer be able to operate. If they can't set aside their religious dogma and prejudice for the good of the children in their care then they aren't qualified to care for the children in the first place.
Sure Jan. Since they won't replace their religious dogma with your own, the best way to help children is to limit the amount of people who actually help children. That makes perfect sense. Nothing helps kids more than denying them help.

Seriously though, think about what you are saying for a damn minute. Cause you are literally saying that even though these agencies are dedicated to helping children, since they won't agree with you the best approach is to STOP HELPING THE CHILDREN for the children's sake. All because they won't replace a bible for a rainbow flag. But please, keep enlightening everyone about how evil and wicked these agencies are for helping children in accordance with their religious beliefs, while your virtuous and righteous self preaches for no one to help them unless the helpers are thoroughly indoctrinated to agree with you.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
26,566
30,241
1,095
Sure Jan. Since they won't replace their religious dogma with your own, the best way to help children is to limit the amount of people who actually help children. That makes perfect sense. Nothing helps kids more than denying them help.

Seriously though, think about what you are saying for a damn minute. Cause you are literally saying that even though these agencies are dedicated to helping children, since they won't agree with you the best approach is to STOP HELPING THE CHILDREN for the children's sake. All because they won't replace a bible for a rainbow flag. But please, keep enlightening everyone about how evil and wicked these agencies are for helping children in accordance with their religious beliefs, while your virtuous and righteous self preaches for no one to help them unless the helpers are thoroughly indoctrinated to agree with you.
These are the same ideologues that want the economy to take, just to spite orange man bad. In effect, doing more harm to everyone they claim to care for. All false virtue, and projection of their inner ugliness.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
These are the same ideologues that want the economy to take, just to spite orange man bad. In effect, doing more harm to everyone they claim to care for. All false virtue, and projection of their inner ugliness.
I'm tired of the pretenses. Let's call them what they are. BIGOTS who worship the false God of ME, ME, ME. Nothing more, and nothing less.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
It is truly mindblowing that you think the matter of whether children should be around certain sexual situations or given as dependents to certain arrangements can be solved by extrinsic studies of any kind
And what do you propose we use? Religious moralism? As if religious moralism has been a super good solver of problems in the past lol. Sorry, but i would rather rely on data and science than on what an invisible man in the sky talking to people 2000 years ago said.
 
Jan 9, 2018
1,000
1,569
415
And what do you propose we use? Religious moralism? As if religious moralism has been a super good solver of problems in the past lol. Sorry, but i would rather rely on data and science than on what an invisible man in the sky talking to people 2000 years ago said.
This kind of argument makes me laugh. If you really think that "data and science" can solve moral questions, your college must have skipped including ethics or philosophy in the curriculum. Empirical studies can only be useful for determining questions of efficacy, but is necessarily silent on all questions of what is ultimately good or bad in the first place--and the latter is where matters of human worth, death, and sexual morality are established, as fundamental questions of value.

And if you think you can build some kind of functioning society without a framework of good and bad that necessarily precedes the ability to even discuss practical or data-driven questions, you're even more confused. You'll probably fall back to the generic liberalism of the last couple of centuries and say, "just let people make their own choices." But even valuing choice over other aspects of human worth and value (honor, faithfulness, etc) requires an enormous leap that isn't provided to us by science--and that would be considered a truly bizarre thing to base all moral values on by most humans who have ever lived across the globe prior to recent capitalism, which tells you something..

To be clear, the universe observed as-it-is doesn't give a damn about human choice or autonomy, and any decision to make those into ultimate values is just as religious a proposition as anything you think you're swearing off by talking about religious moralism. Even to say that the human self is a real thing--rather than a kind of language-based misapprehension of disjointed impulses and processes that scientifically have no "center" driving them--is a way of morally viewing humans that doesn't have scientific foundations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bolivar687

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
If you really think that "data and science" can solve moral questions, your college must have skipped including ethics or philosophy in the curriculum.
I don't think that but they can serve as good allies to make moral judgments, certainly better than a 2000 year old book full of parables that anyone can interpret at will (in fact that falls closer to the letting-people-do-their-own choices position since people could choose their own moral interpretation of religious scripture and go by it). If data shows that gay couples raise children no worse than heterosexual ones then any moral argument that uses a 2000 old book or any other evidence-less statement to counter that evidence is clearly flawed and a poor argument. There's a reason why conservative circles have been whining about SJWs going against science and nature and I agree when applicable but that doesn't mean we should just jump to the other extreme and accept the rightwing version of phantastical parables to make moral decisions at a social level.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,745
3,052
960
What about all those that oppose who don't use the Bible? Or the Muslims? What's the agenda with this selective attacking? Also there is no misinterpretation, there's INTENTIONAL misinterpretation of the "parables" that even your side uses as well to push their nonsense agenda even if it's not supported by the book. Which in itself, is a contradiction.

There's basically no argument here, all of this is just a very narrow targeted attack toward one specific spiritual group of people, and I'm sure you'll say "I think they are all bad" which is the common dodge, but that doesn't negate the truth that the other 99% of people who have your stance only attack one specific spiritual group, called Christians.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
What about all those that oppose who don't use the Bible? Or the Muslims? What's the agenda with this selective attacking? Also there is no misinterpretation, there's INTENTIONAL misinterpretation of the "parables" that even your side uses as well to push their nonsense agenda even if it's not supported by the book. Which in itself, is a contradiction.

There's basically no argument here, all of this is just a very narrow targeted attack toward one specific spiritual group of people, and I'm sure you'll say "I think they are all bad" which is the common dodge, but that doesn't negate the truth that the other 99% of people who have your stance only attack one specific spiritual group, called Christians.
Are you talking to me? If so please quote. I already said that if the agencies are tax-funded they shouldnt be allowed to make decisions based on any faith, ideology or whatever, everyone pays taxes so a tax-based service provider should give the service in the same way to anyone who pays taxes regardless. If the agency is private then let them decide their own rules, the government shouldnt impose their will on non tax-funded agencies, they should be able to decide based on their religion or ideology. The only thing with this is that then you should tolerate people from different religions and ideologies also setting their own rules, like muslim adoption agencies only allowing adoption by muslims or sjw adoption agencies not letting heterosexual white couples to adopt. If Christians are going to be given power to decide on adoption issues based on their faith, i don't see why anyone else shouldnt be given the same premission.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
We also can't keep forgiving the growing reality that same-sex couples have been opting more and more for options like surrogacy and obtaining sperm etc--in other words, intentionally creating children who won't know their one of their parents, which should be recognized and prosecuted as an enormous act of violence upon the human social body. This is happening a great deal with high-profile and high-earning same-sex couples, and does not appear related to adoption in any way. In fact, it's pretty clear that adoption is seen as lesser, whereas loosening up the reality of reproduction and replacing it with purely technological and contractual arrangements for creating children is the goal. And it is a goal one can strongly reject without a single laughable "quantitative social science" study from another grad student who thinks p-values on survey data can solve the question of whether creating motherless / fatherless children is abuse. It is. Always, in every case.
That's extremely hyperbolic. In any case, a lot of surrogacy uses the mother's egg and father's sperm. For example, my wife is a surrogate for a couple who can't have children because the mother got cancer and is physically unable to bear. It's also costing them somewhere in the range of 100k. In the case of couple's who use a sperm or egg donor, anyone willing to go through that much investment to have a child in the first place is going to give that child a lot more love than what I saw as a foster family--where low income trash keep pumping out kids like no tomorrow and neglecting them to hell. It becomes up to the parent to present that news to the child when they are old enough to understand. I'm also in the process of adopting a 2 year old that we've had since she was a week old, because her mother who was addicted to drugs when she gave birth to her, abandoned her at the hospital. Whatever stress that gets put on this child when I tell her who her parents really are pale in comparison to what her life would have been like had she stayed with her drug addicted trash mom.
 
Jan 9, 2018
1,000
1,569
415
I don't think that but they can serve as good allies to make moral judgments, certainly better than a 2000 year old book full of parables that anyone can interpret at will (in fact that falls closer to the letting-people-do-their-own choices position since people could choose their own moral interpretation of religious scripture and go by it).
If data shows that gay couples raise children no worse than heterosexual ones then any moral argument that uses a 2000 old book or any other evidence-less statement to counter that evidence is clearly flawed and a poor argument.
That's not the primary path by which religious reasoning rejects same-sex marriage; it isn't as if we just pull out verses as contextless demands and then run with them. Like it or not, if you want to contend with the sexual morality of Christian teaching, it requires seeing where it fits tightly into an all-encompassing, coherent reading of the value in human life.

Even today's "atheists" will agree as to the unique value of human life; and would recognize that a child dying is somehow more of an offense to all things than a cow dying--categorically in every case, without requiring any facts about the particular cow. But there has to be some kind of framing understanding of why and how humans are unique. To simply herald our intelligence isn't on the mark, because we care for even the mentally weak or disabled; and there's no reason "intelligence" of the human variety would be of importance to the universe anyway, since an algae or bacteria might just fare better in evolution. Clearly there is something about human life that makes each proper name, and the life attached to it, carry more weight than the rest of our world--and the beginning of moral reasoning requires taking some reading of what that value is.

Christians are consistent here and also read birth as having a distinct weight for human life, in the sense that the circumstances of every new human life brought into the world are just as ethically weighty as questions of murder or death. Since every life only comes into being from a paired man and woman, there is a givenness about our existence and the way that each of us is a weaving of those two bodies, and the way in which every child is a permanent artifact of a relationship between two distinct people.

So Christians read marriage as one of the most crucial of all possible human endeavors, for that reason. It forms the public, shared agreement to unite two lives and allows each child to enter as a welcomed gift rather than a project, a product, a technological outcome, or a contractual one (surrogacy etc). Strong norms around it help to keep as many lives as possible under the framing of a lifelong "yes" rather than everyone looking up at their parents to see two warring houses or two people who created your life merely out of a passing fling.

Having children distributed to homes on a basis of merely providing for their physical needs--while further eroding the legal and social distinctiveness and significance of the unique relationship between men & women--is rejected by Christians as part of their entire worldview of value, and not merely on the basis of this or that scriptural passage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bolivar687

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
That's not the primary path by which religious reasoning rejects same-sex marriage; it isn't as if we just pull out verses as contextless demands and then run with them. Like it or not, if you want to contend with the sexual morality of Christian teaching, it requires seeing where it fits tightly into an all-encompassing, coherent reading of the value in human life.

Even today's "atheists" will agree as to the unique value of human life; and would recognize that a child dying is somehow more of an offense to all things than a cow dying--categorically in every case, without requiring any facts about the particular cow. But there has to be some kind of framing understanding of why and how humans are unique. To simply herald our intelligence isn't on the mark, because we care for even the mentally weak or disabled; and there's no reason "intelligence" of the human variety would be of importance to the universe anyway, since an algae or bacteria might just fare better in evolution. Clearly there is something about human life that makes each proper name, and the life attached to it, carry more weight than the rest of our world--and the beginning of moral reasoning requires taking some reading of what that value is.

Christians are consistent here and also read birth as having a distinct weight for human life, in the sense that the circumstances of every new human life brought into the world are just as ethically weighty as questions of murder or death. Since every life only comes into being from a paired man and woman, there is a givenness about our existence and the way that each of us is a weaving of those two bodies, and the way in which every child is a permanent artifact of a relationship between two distinct people.

So Christians read marriage as one of the most crucial of all possible human endeavors, for that reason. It forms the public, shared agreement to unite two lives and allows each child to enter as a welcomed gift rather than a project, a product, a technological outcome, or a contractual one (surrogacy etc). Strong norms around it help to keep as many lives as possible under the framing of a lifelong "yes" rather than everyone looking up at their parents to see two warring houses or two people who created your life merely out of a passing fling.

Having children distributed to homes on a basis of merely providing for their physical needs--while further eroding the legal and social distinctiveness and significance of the unique relationship between men & women--is rejected by Christians as part of their entire worldview of value, and not merely on the basis of this or that scriptural passage.
And that's all fine and dandy and i respect your view of the uniqueness of human life but, as a non-christian myself, i don't share it or should be demanded to share it when demanding a service financed by taxes i paid for. Not even within Christian groups there is apparently this consensus of the meaning of life since there are hundreds (or thousands?) of groups based on Christian faith and some of them don't even have problems with gay marriage or adoption. If a Christian-based group wants to impose their faith-based beliefs on adoption maybe they should use their own money and not everyone's taxes.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
And that's all fine and dandy and i respect your view of the uniqueness of human life but, as a non-christian myself, i don't share it or should be demanded to share it when demanding a service financed by taxes i paid for. Not even within Christian groups there is apparently this consensus of the meaning of life since there are hundreds (or thousands?) of groups based on Christian faith and some of them don't even have problems with gay marriage or adoption. If a Christian-based group wants to impose their faith-based beliefs on adoption maybe they should use their own money and not everyone's taxes.
Do you know for a fact that there are non-religious affiliated organizations who will step in and fill the void if faith based organizations are denied funds to keep helping the children?
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
Do you know for a fact that there are non-religious affiliated organizations who will step in and fill the void if faith based organizations are denied funds to keep helping the children?
I have no clue about this but where there's a niche there's usually a group willing to fill it.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
I have no clue about this but where there's a niche there's usually a group willing to fill it.
Oh, I strenuously disagree that we should just assume someone will help the children when we cast out people actually doing it because they think differently. Sounds like a perfect recipe for children getting no help IMO.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
Oh, I strenuously disagree that we should just assume someone will help the children when we cast out people actually doing it because they think differently. Sounds like a perfect recipe for children getting no help IMO.
You could always test if there are people willing to take over before a Christian organisation loses the license.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
You could always test if there are people willing to take over before a Christian organisation loses the license.
Perfectly reasonable. But I know how it would play out. The keyboard warriors who advocate to cull the Christians from doing Christian things would never show up to help. And the people who do show up will be looking for much more money, benefits, etc., than the Christians. At best less children get helped, all because some people hate Christians more than they love children.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,576
465
I really don't get the hypothetical about religious organizations not being allowed to discriminate citing religious reasons or else they cease to function.

As long as you get taxpayer money you don't get to ever discriminate using that money against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, orientation.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
I really don't get the hypothetical about religious organizations not being allowed to discriminate citing religious reasons or else they cease to function.

As long as you get taxpayer money you don't get to ever discriminate using that money against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, orientation.
There is no hypothetical. In a classroom or online forum that proposition (abandon your religion or get no state support) sounds simple enough, and fear of being ostracized prevents most people from raising the obvious. But in the real world the obvious is real --> when you stop letting people help others because you object to their religious values, you are leaving people with no help at all.

Think about it this way. How many people do you know, who think Christians should not be given money to help children, will trade their 6 or 7 figure job for a job that pays them a tiny fraction of what they currently get, all to help children find homes that want to adopt them?
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,576
465
There is no hypothetical. In a classroom or online forum that proposition (abandon your religion or get no state support) sounds simple enough, and fear of being ostracized prevents most people from raising the obvious. But in the real world the obvious is real --> when you stop letting people help others because you object to their religious values, you are leaving people with no help at all.

Think about it this way. How many people do you know, who think Christians should not be given money to help children, will trade their 6 or 7 figure job for a job that pays them a tiny fraction of what they currently get, all to help children find homes that want to adopt them?
I don't understand that expectation at all and I think it's just a gigantic distraction from the root issue, separation of church and state. All those people working 6 or 7 figure jobs are paying a lot of taxes that go into those organizations helping those children regardless.

If people are really running with this whole "quit your job and do it yourself" diatribe instead of somehow showing this isn't a violation between separation of church and state then I think we all know whose position isn't backed up by logic or reason.

If Trump is the freedom lover he thinks he is then I know where he ends up on this but he might just be posturing to throw the evangelicals a bone.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
I don't understand that expectation at all and I think it's just a gigantic distraction from the root issue, separation of church and state. All those people working 6 or 7 figure jobs are paying a lot of taxes that go into those organizations helping those children regardless.

If people are really running with this whole "quit your job and do it yourself" diatribe instead of somehow showing this isn't a violation between separation of church and state then I think we all know whose position isn't backed up by logic or reason.

If Trump is the freedom lover he thinks he is then I know where he ends up on this but he might just be posturing to throw the evangelicals a bone.
There is no violation of separation of church and state. The government has always been allowed to provide non-religious assistance to religious organizations whose work includes functions of the state. That is why catholic school children take the same buses as public school children. What you are advocating for, intentionally or not, is to reinterpret the separation of church and state in a manner that promotes a new quasi religion above all else, and stamps out all non-believers.

Christian groups have helped children for hundreds of years in the US, but suddenly helping them find homes is a constitutional threat????? Bullshit - this is just an extension of say what we believe, or nothing at all, or we will get you fired. Its even more sickening though, because now they genuinely want children denied help if the helper won't bend their knee first.

And no, expecting that people stand up to help before we listen to why we should prevent others from helping, is not a distraction. It's common sense. We don't throw babies out with bathwater.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,576
465
There is no violation of separation of church and state. The government has always been allowed to provide non-religious assistance to religious organizations whose work includes functions of the state. That is why catholic school children take the same buses as public school children. What you are advocating for, intentionally or not, is to reinterpret the separation of church and state in a manner that promotes a new quasi religion above all else, and stamps out all non-believers.

Christian groups have helped children for hundreds of years in the US, but suddenly helping them find homes is a constitutional threat????? Bullshit - this is just an extension of say what we believe, or nothing at all, or we will get you fired. Its even more sickening though, because now they genuinely want children denied help if the helper won't bend their knee first.

And no, expecting that people stand up to help before we listen to why we should prevent others from helping, is not a distraction. It's common sense. We don't throw babies out with bathwater.
Do you think this would fly at all if one of these groups tried to block a white parent from adopting a black child or black parent from adopting a white child and cited a religious scripture to justify it?
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
Do you think this would fly at all if one of these groups tried to block a white parent from adopting a black child or black parent from adopting a white child and cited a religious scripture to justify it?
Hmmmm. It kind of looks like you cannot morally or legally justify punishing orphans because Christians won't abandon their religion, so you decided to throw out a stupid hypothetical about "what if the Christians became racist and kicked out the millions of black Christians from their churches, because they found some new scripture that no one noticed for 2019 years."

Is this really your best effort to convince me why Christian's should be banned from helping find good homes for orphans after doing so for 2000 years, and why orphans should remain orphans unless Christians replace a bible with a flag?
 
Last edited:

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,576
465
Hmmmm. It kind of looks like you cannot morally or legally justify punishing orphans because Christians won't abandon their religion, so you decided to throw out a stupid hypothetical about "what if the Christians became racist and kicked out the millions of black Christians from their churches, because they found some new scripture that no one noticed for 2019 years."

Is this really your best effort to convince me why Christian's should be banned from helping find good homes for orphans after doing so for 2000 years, and why orphans should remain orphans unless Christians replace a bible with a flag?
i never said anything about banning anyone or punishing orphans, good grief. I don't see the difference between discriminating against lgbt and discriminating against race.

you are not capable of handling a discussion, have a good day sir.

thank flying spaghetti monster my adoption agency didnt have to deal with this shit.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
i never said anything about banning anyone or punishing orphans, good grief. I don't see the difference between discriminating against lgbt and discriminating against race.

you are not capable of handling a discussion, have a good day sir.

thank flying spaghetti monster my adoption agency didnt have to deal with this shit.
You are 100% calling to ban Christian groups from finding orphans homes (unless they abandon their beliefs, same thing), and rendering orphans to remain orphans. You don't want to accept it because you believe there is a noble purpose in denying them the funding they rely on. But that is what you are doing when you advocate to take their funding away unless they subscribe to your belief. That you were adopted does not change the fact that you want to reduce the number of adoption agencies unless they subscribe to your beliefs, and unless someone will fill their void, more orphans will go without getting help. This is not rocket science.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,576
465
You are 100% calling to ban Christian groups from finding orphans homes (unless they abandon their beliefs, same thing), and rendering orphans to remain orphans. You don't want to accept it because you believe there is a noble purpose in denying them the funding they rely on. But that is what you are doing when you advocate to take their funding away unless they subscribe to your belief. That you were adopted does not change the fact that you want to reduce the number of adoption agencies unless they subscribe to your beliefs, and unless someone will fill their void, more orphans will go without getting help. This is not rocket science.
I don't want to ban any groups from helping orphans or potential adoptees, I want them to follow the same rules that we apply everywhere else. I don't care what one's religion decrees how they live, who they fuck, whatever it is, the moment their religious beliefs start to intrude upon the lives of how others may live and most importantly if they receive government funding there is a basic set of rules and principles we all abide by. When it's something harmless that doesn't affect others I couldn't care less, go live your best life, but when other people will suffer there is an issue.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,745
3,052
960
As long as you get taxpayer money you don't get to ever discriminate using that money against people based on race, religion, ethnicity, orientation.
That's not why they are getting Federal tax money, the whole point is to separate Church and state, and that's what the benefits and 501c3's are trying to keep in place. Having the government "stop" a religious organization, that a segment of people don't agree with because it receives taxpayer money, would directly violate the constitution.

Not to mention there are zero federal protections for orientation and gender Identity and never will be because it would set a precedent that would break the "protected groups" clause causing it to shatter like glass. You'd go from innate concrete, visible, defined, solid traits (Race, Sex, Disabled) to dynamic, up in the air, always changing, liquid traits that have no solid definition or foundation (Non-binary, Trans, Gay, Queer, Drag, popcorn, trampoline.). There will never be support for such a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFire

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,672
545
Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant but that's what I thought you were implying.
When I say they will crave male attention, I don't mean they will turn gay and want to bang older men.

I mean that in the articles I posted, it shows lots of psychological problems from not having a father. In boys, they are often troubled. They don't have a male figure to teach them discipline. They will act out trying to fill that void of masculinity. In girls, it is often more sexual. Once they start to have males show them attention, it is something they have not gotten enough of, and like I said, they crave it.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
I don't want to ban any groups from helping orphans or potential adoptees, I want them to follow the same rules that we apply everywhere else. I don't care what one's religion decrees how they live, who they fuck, whatever it is, the moment their religious beliefs start to intrude upon the lives of how others may live and most importantly if they receive government funding there is a basic set of rules and principles we all abide by. When it's something harmless that doesn't affect others I couldn't care less, go live your best life, but when other people will suffer there is an issue.
They aren't breaking any rules. They just won't follow your belief as to what the rules should be going forward (which is abandoning their religious beliefs or not being allowed to operate). And it is intellectually dishonest to say I am not banning a religious group from helping people, because I am only demanding that they stop acting like a religious group if they want to help people. It is also intellectually dishonest to say they are making people suffer. Its actually pure nonsense, and the exact opposite of what they are doing, which is helping orphans find loving homes.
 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
718
372
280
The argument that children adopted by LGBT parents won't have a male (or female) role model is questionable, because they will also have the option of interacting with uncles, aunts, teachers, and other relatives or friends. Your role model doesn't have to be your parent. In fact, even in heterosexual families that's not guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
5,868
5,174
505
As long as the screened parents seem like good people, aren't crooks, have stable jobs and can afford to give the kid a fair shot at life, no problem from me about the parents being LGBT etc....

However, this world still puts a stigma on that, so the gov has to consider what the kid might endure in terms of being made fun of and emotional state.

Men and women generally have different ways of thinking, skew to different kinds of jobs, and even for stereotypical boring shit skew to different types of chores.

I had a traditional family with siblings, a mom and a dad. Looking back, it would be fucking weird if I grew up and both my parents acted like mom, or both acted like dad.

Best fit is giving a kid parents who are rock solid and are both a man and woman. But if the gov can't find a worthy set of traditional man/woman parents, a good set of LBGT are fine too.
 
Last edited:

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
It is against their biological nature. An animals basic instinct is to survive and reproduce.

I would say the same about anyone over 35 with no kids.
My mother was over 35 when she had me. Despite wanting another child (my sibling is 12 years older). It took over 12 years. Get the fuck out of here with your ignorant bullshit in a topic that doesn't even require it.

I won't even apologize. You are not offensive. Because I don't think you have that much up there. But God doesn't give with both hands.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: King of Foxes

Platinumstorm

Member
Oct 19, 2011
1,088
196
635
I read no posts in this thread other than the original OP. I am a PCP. I have patients who are same sex, and I help evaluate adoptive parents so they can adopt children in need. I see these children as my patients as well, and they're raised well. Evil doesn't have a sexual orientation, it doesn't have a racial orientation, and it doesn't have a class orientation. It's amazing that we don't learn from the past.
 
Last edited: