Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples

[homersapien 11,373]

All in the name of protecting "religious liberty".

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/04/alabama-will-allow-adoption-agencies-to-discriminate-against-lgbt-couples/

[TitanTiger 20,482]

The way that I see it is, there's this pool or group of children needing to be adopted.  And there's the state agency that tries to facilitate pairing adoptive children with homes.  And there are various private agencies that also help find prospective parents for adoptive children.  And then there are private religious agencies doing the same thing.  And the different agencies have different philosophies and methods for pairing children and parents that they think is best.

If there is a Christian agency, or a Muslim agency or a Jewish agency, etc. who incorporates the tenets of their faith in finding loving homes for kids, so be it.  No one is forced to use a religious agency to adopt.  A two parent home with a mother AND a father is considered by them to be the optimal environment for a child to be raised in.  I'm not sure I see what the big deal is.  Some states for instance don't allow unmarried couples to adopt, even in a day and age where fewer couples are getting married yet are staying together.  Others restrict single people's ability to adopt.  Are they discriminating?  Perhaps.  Do they have valid reasons for doing so in this way?  Yeah, I believe they do.  Likewise, I see nothing the matter with an agency saying, "We reserve the right to restrict adoptions through our agency to homes with a stable, married mother and father because children need - if at all possible - to have a mother and a father in the home, not one or the other.  Men/women, moms and dads are not interchangeable parts."

Perhaps if the only way to adopt a child was through one of these agencies I'd have a different feeling on the matter.  But that's not the case.  

[homersapien 11,373]

I see it as irony.  

Denying a child parents solely for the sake of their own ignorant prejudice and judgementalism.

So Christ-like.

[Grumps 3,704]

39 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I see it as irony.  

Denying a child parents solely for the sake of their own ignorant prejudice and judgementalism.

So Christ-like.

Umm...yeah...you are so right. Helping orphans get adopted is so anti-Christian.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I see it as irony.  

Denying a child parents solely for the sake of their own ignorant prejudice and judgementalism.

So Christ-like.

They aren't denying a child parents.  They have different criteria for prospective parents and will place them with a family that fits that criteria.  In fact, every adoption agency, public or private, has some criteria that deprioritizes or eliminates certain people from the pool of prospective parents.  You or I may not agree with how they make those decisions, but they have reasons for the policies they establish.  

But it's utter BS to act as if having criteria such as "a mother AND a father in the house" is denying a child parents.  In fact, if all the Christian/religious adoption agencies didn't exist, less children would be adopted, not more.

[homersapien 11,373]

38 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Umm...yeah...you are so right. Helping orphans get adopted is so anti-Christian.

How is turning away potential parents helping orphans get adopted?

 

[homersapien 11,373]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They aren't denying a child parents.  They have different criteria for prospective parents and will place them with a family that fits that criteria.  In fact, every adoption agency, public or private, has some criteria that deprioritizes or eliminates certain people from the pool of prospective parents.  You or I may not agree with how they make those decisions, but they have reasons for the policies they establish.  

But it's utter BS to act as if having criteria such as "a mother AND a father in the house" is denying a child parents.  In fact, if all the Christian/religious adoption agencies didn't exist, less children would be adopted, not more.

Actually, having such a standard is BS.  Without it, they would be placing more orphans also.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Actually, having such a standard is BS.  Without it, they would be placing more orphans also.

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable parts. Perhaps if you run into a situation where not enough loving, qualified two parent households with both a mom and a dad aren't available you can look at other arrangements, because some kind of permanent home is better than an orphanage or foster care. But it's ludicrous to act as if such a criteria is meaningless. 

All of the various adoption agencies are working, each in their different ways, to get kids adopted. One of the reasons states use private and religious agencies is because they historically have done a good job placing children in good homes. In some ways they've done a superior job than the state could do alone because of what each agency uniquely brings to the table. Let them. Quit trying to get everyone to conform to your view of what's best. 

[homersapien 11,373]

Just to be clear, I think church-based agencies have every right to discrimminate against homosexuals. This is not meant as a challenge to what they are doing, just an observation.

Hell, I wish they would put up signs declaring they believe homosexuality is a sin for everyone to see.  Advertise your values!  

I am just remarking on the irony between such policies and what (I think) Christ represented.   

 

[Grumps 3,704]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

How is turning away potential parents helping orphans get adopted?

 

Are you saying that the organizations are NOT helping kids get adopted? Are you saying that the organizations should NOT try to put the kids in what they believe to be the best possible homes? Are you saying that the focus on the adoption of orphans should be mainly about the future parents as opposed to the orphans themselves? Why focus on the good being done by an organization when you can focus on something that could conceivably be construed as negative, right?

[homersapien 11,373]

54 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that the organizations are NOT helping kids get adopted? Are you saying that the organizations should NOT try to put the kids in what they believe to be the best possible homes? Are you saying that the focus on the adoption of orphans should be mainly about the future parents as opposed to the orphans themselves? Why focus on the good being done by an organization when you can focus on something that could conceivably be construed as negative, right?

No, I am saying these agencies are not meeting the need of a particular orphan to be adopted by a particular gay couple because the agencies are making an arbitrary decision about the suitability of said couple. By definition.

While you may not agree, the logic is not at fault.

[Grumps 3,704]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, I am saying these agencies are not meeting the need of a particular orphan to be adopted by a particular gay couple because the agencies are making an arbitrary decision about the suitability of said couple. By definition.

While you may not agree, the logic is not at fault.

It just seems that you are looking hard to come at these organizations from a negative slant when it seems so much more obvious and honest that they are doing positive things. Also, are you implying that there are particular orphans who have a need to be adopted by a particular gay couple? How did you come to this conclusion?

[alexava 6,973]

I agree the best situation for orphans is a stable home with a mother and father. Both newborns and toddlers to teens, need this environment. But older kids sometimes spend their entire childhood in foster or orphanages. I would hope these organizations would consider same sex parents as an option for children that aren't being put in the most desirable homes. I understand their belief not to make same sex couples parents but I would not understand them keeping kids parent less to avoid it.

[creed 1,637]

56 minutes ago, Grumps said:

It just seems that you are looking hard to come at these organizations from a negative slant when it seems so much more obvious and honest that they are doing positive things. Also, are you implying that there are particular orphans who have a need to be adopted by a particular gay couple? How did you come to this conclusion?

Check....maybe mate.

[homersapien 11,373]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

It just seems that you are looking hard to come at these organizations from a negative slant when it seems so much more obvious and honest that they are doing positive things. Also, are you implying that there are particular orphans who have a need to be adopted by a particular gay couple? How did you come to this conclusion?

I think the tension between individual/legal rights and certain religious beliefs is worthy of examination. It's a tension that is both eternal and universal (global).  

That tension in the US is far, far less than than in many places, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist here which makes it fair game for comment. After all, this is our society.

I haven't done any research on this, but is there a lawsuit that precipitated this law?  

If so, I would have thought a more "conservative" approach would be to let the lawsuit play out. I happen to agree with Titan* that a homosexual couple would likely have alternatives which disproves harm.  That seems like a good compromise to me. (Of course, this assumes that those alternatives exist.)

In summary, this sounds to me like more of an attack against homosexuality disguised as a defense of religious principles.  It is a signal that the state does not recognize them as legal equals - or more succinctly, citizens.

Does that help? 

 

* Please excuse me for being presumptious Titan.

[homersapien 11,373]

Oh, I forgot to address the question about individual orphans....   

That was a hypothetical meant to illustrate that it's ultimately people - and their lives - we are talking about. 

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, creed said:

Check....maybe mate.

qft lightweight  

[PUB78 1,358]

On 5/5/2017 at 3:35 PM, homersapien said:

I see it as irony.  

Denying a child parents solely for the sake of their own ignorant prejudice and judgementalism.

So Christ-like.

Homosexuality is not Christ like and against the Scriptures. 

[homersapien 11,373]

43 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Homosexuality is not Christ like and against the Scriptures. 

You make my point so well.

[Mims44 1,869]

On 5/6/2017 at 9:05 PM, homersapien said:

I think the tension between individual/legal rights and certain religious beliefs is worthy of examination. It's a tension that is both eternal and universal (global).  

That tension in the US is far, far less than than in many places, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist here which makes it fair game for comment. After all, this is our society.

I haven't done any research on this, but is there a lawsuit that precipitated this law?  

If so, I would have thought a more "conservative" approach would be to let the lawsuit play out. I happen to agree with Titan* that a homosexual couple would likely have alternatives which disproves harm.  That seems like a good compromise to me. (Of course, this assumes that those alternatives exist.)

In summary, this sounds to me like more of an attack against homosexuality disguised as a defense of religious principles.  It is a signal that the state does not recognize them as legal equals - or more succinctly, citizens.

Does that help? 

 

* Please excuse me for being presumptious Titan.

Whoever doesn't get their way always feels "attacked"

If it was reversed and Alabama told Christians they didn't give a crap about their beliefs and that they were going to be forced to help homosexuals, then the Christians would be posting about how the government is attacking them.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

22 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Homosexuality is not Christ like and against the Scriptures. 

Well said. Factual, short and to the point.

[alexava 6,973]

It makes a point on the other side as well. If the scriptures are keeping children orphaned we need to use another guide book to manage adoptions. 

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

6 minutes ago, alexava said:

It makes a point on the other side as well. If the scriptures are keeping children orphaned we need to use another guide book to manage adoptions. 

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!  There is no other guide book.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Well said. Factual, short and to the point.

Agreed!  Well except for the factual bit, for which I'd like to see a quote.

But on the other hand, who needs the words of Jesus when we have modern day, Christian homophobes to explain what he thought?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said:

Noooooooooo!!!!!!!  There is no other guide book.

Show us the part where Jesus said homosexuals were not worthy of adopting an orphan.  

I missed that part.