• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Judge Won't Hear Gay Adoptions Because They're Not in a Child's 'Best Interest'"

N

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Hammerheart said:
You do make a valid point. I am against the idea of adoption, however, other peoples' idiocy and irresponsibility make it necessary. Maybe a good solution would be to do away with the adoption system altogether, and force parents to actually take care of their own children.
Click to expand...
..

That won't end poorly at all.
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Hammerheart said:
... heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.
Click to expand...

Based on? What, exactly?

Actual studies show your bias is false, and that happily married gay couples will do much better for the child, than either a single parent, or an unhappily married straight couple.

Without exception. Kids do better in happy homes, and better with two parents-- the gender simply doesn't matter, as much as the overall happiness.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Hammerheart said:
I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality and gay marriage, however, gay adoption seems like a bad idea. This has nothing to do with sexual morality. Things work the way they do for a reason; heterosexual parents would be the best psychological influences on the child.
Click to expand...
Actually, studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents end up just as well adjusted (if not more) than children raised by heterosexual parents:

Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. - PubMed - NCBI
What We Know Blog | What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents?
Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hammerheart said:
You do make a valid point. I am against the idea of adoption, however, other peoples' idiocy and irresponsibility make it necessary. Maybe a good solution would be to do away with the adoption system altogether, and force parents to actually take care of their own children.
Click to expand...
That's... Neverminding for a moment the children that come to adoption and foster care system because their parents have died, what about the children who were taken away from abusive, negligent, or substance addicted parents? Do you honestly believe a good solution is to force those children to stay in those households?
And what about women who cannot biologically have their own children (Such as me. My ovaries are full of cysts and won't ovulate) who do want to have children?
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
Skwim said:
"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​
Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

Thoughts?

​

.
Click to expand...

You see this annoys me.

I think I am near center and am pro-life and I think that these couples would be good candidates for children that would have been aborted to go to.

But a lot of people of the right are "pro-life" but want to prevent those children from being adopted because of their un-scientific and immoral views of homosexuality.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
ImmortalFlame said:
Actually, studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents end up just as well adjusted (if not more) than children raised by heterosexual parents:

Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. - PubMed - NCBI
What We Know Blog | What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents?
Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes
Click to expand...
Why this is true isn't hard to figure out.
Gay parents are constantly under the gun. They aren't likely to get pregnant by accident.
Gay parents really want to be parents and are generally given every out from parenting possible. When they stay parents in the face of all that social blowback it's because they really love kids and want to take on the responsibilities of child care.

As opposed to normal parents who may well just be going through the motions because they think that they have to.
Tom
 
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
The Massachusetts law requires that homosexuals may adopt.
Catholic charities handled many adoptions, many difficult ones. But because of the Catholic church position on homosexual marriage they were not allowed to place adoptive children with a homosexual couple, the state pulled their license for adoptions.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
pcarl said:
The Massachusetts law requires that homosexuals may adopt.
Catholic charities handled many adoptions, many difficult ones. But because of the Catholic church position on homosexual marriage they were not allowed to place adoptive children with a homosexual couple, the state pulled their license for adoptions.
Click to expand...
That is not true. The Catholics refused to provide adoption service. They couldn't discriminate legally so they stopped doing it.
The state did not "pull their license ".
Tom
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
pcarl said:
The Massachusetts law requires that homosexuals may adopt.
Catholic charities handled many adoptions, many difficult ones. But because of the Catholic church position on homosexual marriage they were not allowed to place adoptive children with a homosexual couple, the state pulled their license for adoptions.
Click to expand...

columbus said:
That is not true. The Catholics refused to provide adoption service. They couldn't discriminate legally so they stopped doing it.
The state did not "pull their license ".
Tom
Click to expand...

Not taking sides here, but could one of you pull up evidence for this?

I am curious.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
Not taking sides here, but could one of you pull up evidence for this?

I am curious.
Click to expand...
It was years ago and I am not that good at the internet.
What happened was the state of Massachusetts passed a law requiring things to be done without gender discrimination. It included adoption service, although that wasn't what the law was about. Adoption just wasn't exempted.
The Catholics said they wouldn't do it under a law requiring them to consider couples who are gay. But the state didn't stop them from arranging adoptions. They chose not to.
They didn't have their license pulled.

You could probably find old newspaper articles where the RCC threatens to stop arranging adoptions if the law is passed. But you won't find reference to Massachusetts "pulling the license" because nothing like that happened.
Tom
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
columbus said:
It was years ago and I am not that good at the internet.
What happened was the state of Massachusetts passed a law requiring things to be done without gender discrimination. It included adoption service, although that wasn't what the law was about. Adoption just wasn't exempted.
The Catholics said they wouldn't do it under a law requiring them to consider couples who are gay. But the state didn't stop them from arranging adoptions. They chose not to.
They didn't have their license pulled.

You could probably find old newspaper articles where the RCC threatens to stop arranging adoptions if the law is passed. But you won't find reference to Massachusetts "pulling the license" because nothing like that happened.
Tom
Click to expand...

Come on man, you know I'm not going to be able to just go of your word.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
Yeah but you also made a claim that the church closed their adoptions.
Click to expand...
In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston, which had been one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, faced a very difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors.In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring "sexual orientation discrimination."
Click to expand...

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Discrimination Against Catholic Adoption Services

The church didn't want to recognize gay couples as married. So they stopped arranging adoptions in Massachusetts. I am not sure what they do now.
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top