First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Texas Senate approves 'religious refusal' adoption measure
6582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/17
religion should be irrelevant for the most part when it comes to picking people to adopt or foster kids should be good stable people who are capable and willing to handle such a task. picking people based on their religion or lack of is foolish. and i would think its somewhat illegal in the USA do to the separation of church and state aspect of their legal system which is supposed to prevent stuff like this i believe.
26000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 6/2/17
They care more about people being Christian (which does not indicate that someone is a good person at all, but I don't suppose people who would keep kids away from loving parents who are non-Christian or with someone of the same sex have any idea what being 'good' even means) and straight than they do about the well-being of the children.

I wish I could say I'm surprised. But really I'm not.
19570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/2/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Huh, is this accurate? You can't seriously delegate what are publicly funded agencies to only allow adoptions by Christians. That borders on an indirect attempt at indoctrination if I ever saw one.


That's not quite what's going on here. To give this fair consideration, you have to remove all the loaded terminology and think of it like this:

If an adoption agency thinks this child here should not be placed with that family there, for any reason at all, they are the final authority on the matter and the government can't make them do it anyway.

When you put it that way, it seems like a good idea. After all, it lets agencies institute policies like only allowing atheists to adopt, or refusing to give children to anyone who believes the world is six thousand years old and flat. Right now, those are also not reasons an agency can refuse adoption. A religious family can adopt from a secular agency even if their religion is fucked up and weird, and if you say no they can screech about the first amendment.
22322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 6/2/17

cdarklock wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Huh, is this accurate? You can't seriously delegate what are publicly funded agencies to only allow adoptions by Christians. That borders on an indirect attempt at indoctrination if I ever saw one.


That's not quite what's going on here. To give this fair consideration, you have to remove all the loaded terminology and think of it like this:

If an adoption agency thinks this child here should not be placed with that family there, for any reason at all, they are the final authority on the matter and the government can't make them do it anyway.

When you put it that way, it seems like a good idea. After all, it lets agencies institute policies like only allowing atheists to adopt, or refusing to give children to anyone who believes the world is six thousand years old and flat. Right now, those are also not reasons an agency can refuse adoption. A religious family can adopt from a secular agency even if their religion is fucked up and weird, and if you say no they can screech about the first amendment.


It seems my way of stating it is more accurate (personal opinion, although the indoctrination is a stretch), as it points to the religious discrimination and priority, though I am not entirely sure of the adoption system, though it seems that for publicly funded agencies, as specified in the original post, one should abide by the rules of standard governments I suppose, and this includes several prohibitions against discrimination. While some may argue that private businesses should have the right, I believe the government should be a model for acceptance at the very least. My post was aimed at publicly funded agencies.

That being said, I made a similar point in the "Taking away from 2+ gender thread", and I would argue that generally, one cannot take a child away based on the mores and perhaps even facts that are being taught by the parents on that alone, but must be done in terms of abuses, including physical or otherwise included under some sort of cruelty I could consider (Have to think of the cases as they go, but extreme humiliation probably fits). My reasoning being that it isn't the government's choice to dictate the right and wrong of an already subjective view, that leans more towards a big brother government.

It seems similar here, but I suppose that views may be considered, such as businesses and prospective employees and such, but I am not sure what to think now that I mention that.
21467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/2/17
The ones who do this better not be public ally funded. Only private orgaizations should be allowed to do this
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/2/17

Rujikin wrote:

The ones who do this better not be public ally funded. Only private orgaizations should be allowed to do this


Ok who are you and what have to done with the real Rujikn?
19570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
It seems my way of stating it is more accurate


But if the law actually specifies a religion by name, it will be struck down as unconstitutional within a year. So while the intent of legislators may be to enable christian indoctrination, the letter of the law will need to comply with the first amendment, necessarily allowing agencies to refuse adoption based on any difference in religious belief.


My post was aimed at publicly funded agencies.


It doesn't work the way people always think it does. They make a law that says "if you take public funds, you have to do what we say!" and then nod smugly because without those public funds the agency can't afford to operate at all.

So the agency closes down entirely, because they place a higher value on their moral position. And instead of an agency that won't let Jews and gays adopt these 500 kids, you now have 500 homeless kids.

Nobody seems to grasp the conditional. They say "you have to do this in this way!" and forget that this sentence properly ends with "if you want to do it at all" and that constitutes a choice, which the person you are trying to control can still make.

And Americans don't like being controlled. That's why when we freed the slaves, they had to fight lynch mobs and segregation and miscegenation laws and prejudice for a century and a half, and there is still fucking racism. Because the North said "let those people go" and the South said "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME" and half a million people died before they finally said "okay, we'll set them free, but we're still gonna treat them like shit." So now we're actually fighting over whether it's okay to fly the confederate flag. Because look, Russians still fly the Soviet flag because Stalin and Germans still fly the Nazi flag because Hitler and oh wait no they don't because that's fucking horrible.

You know how people who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it?

Well, yes, it is bad and wrong that people treat the GBLT community unfairly. Just like it was bad and wrong for people to own other people like property. But if an army of SJWs forms up to tell everyone "be nice to queers," a bunch of people are going to go "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME" and I'd rather not find out how long it takes to fix that shit.

So I say just let people be dicks, and when they be dicks at gay people, you can just say "dude, why you gotta be a dick?" and eventually they'll stop. The idea that we need churches and religion to provide charity is bullshit, and in the next century or so these archaic institutions will mostly die out precisely because they rely on moralistic policies to make decisions.

And for the moment, that means explicitly saying "hey, it's okay to be a dick about it when you don't like people." Shouldn't that be in the bill of rights? I feel like it ought to be. I mean, besides the ninth amendment.


That being said, I made a similar point in the "Taking away from 2+ gender thread", and I would argue that generally, one cannot take a child away based on the mores and perhaps even facts that are being taught by the parents on that alone, but must be done in terms of abuses, including physical or otherwise included under some sort of cruelty


The crux of the question is whether you can refuse to place a child on those grounds. I agree with you that we can't take someone's children away because they're a young Earth creationist, or whatever other reason, but can we still refuse to let them foster or adopt?

It's not an easy question.
8801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 6/2/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Based Texas



This.
562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
All of time / God
Offline
Posted 6/2/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Based Texas



of course you like this. i'd be surprised if you ever had an objection to a law similar to this
18803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Online
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
Wait GLAAD IS AN EXTREMIST GROUP
RAGE

Is it more important that a child has a loving family than if both are boys or a boy and a trans girl or two trans girl Muslims ruining your imagine of the nuclear family when we don't live in the age of nuclear annihilation
18803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Online
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
[inappropriate content removed by moderator]
8801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
[largely appropriate response to inappropriate post removed by moderator, due to personal commentary starting to derail thread]
18803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Online
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
[inappropriate response removed by moderator]
8801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
[partially inappropriate response removed by moderator]
18803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Online
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
[inappropriate portions of this post were removed by moderator]
Also I meant you since there are fewer people able to adopt I expect those who support this to pick up the slack
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.