RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
February 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm by theVOID.)
(February 28, 2011 at 11:45 am)Jaysyn Wrote:(February 28, 2011 at 11:31 am)theVOID Wrote: Not quite, they were told that if they adopted they couldn't say homophobic things to the child so they decided not to adopt.
So now because some paper pushing cunt made being gay-friendly a condition of adoption there is a baby without a family...
...You think this is a win?
What's worse, being in a foster home or being told that gays are immoral? I'd chose the later, thanks.
Is that what they call a false dilemma?
No, it's a rather arbitrary constraint on adoption and a very slippery slope.
Quote:Thousands of couples want to adopt babies & most of them are not homophobic.
There are more children than there are families. Is having no family worse than being exposed to someone who says homosexuality is a bad lifestyle choice?
And if we stop people with a negative attitude towards gays from adopting, then what? People with negative attitudes towards atheists or religious people or abortions or people who believe in creationism?
Quote: There is a screening process for a reason & I'd trust that the person hired to oversee said screening process has a better idea of how to place a child with an adoptive family than you do.
Half the US are homophobic, should we stop them adopting?
Quote:Oh wait, they are a government employee, so they automatically must have no idea what they are doing, regardless of the amount of learning & degrees that they have to obtain before being hired for that position.
1. Complete straw man, my issue is with government being involved in things they shouldn't be, I've never said that someone being in government automatically makes them clueless.
2. Argument from authority. Just because this guy has (or does he? he could just be a social worker paid to do a job, all of the social workers I know are unqualified) a degree in sociology he's automatically right? Is there a consensus amongst sociologists that letting homophobes adopt should be avoided? Does the data considering the psychological harm to a child in a foster home vs the harm in being in a homophobic family concur? Is there any such data?
3. He most certainly didn't decide the policy, he was saying that it's a red-tape requirement, it's a mandate from government - Does that make it good automatically? I'd think the damage from disallowing homophobes adoption rights is more detrimental than letting them adopt - Feel free to show me wrong. Foster homes are renowned for producing criminals because of the lack of good and stable family structure.
(February 28, 2011 at 11:45 am)Skipper Wrote: Perhaps for one individual child this a loss. But for wider society it is a massive win. Any chance we get to stop hatred and bigotry being spread, either via religion or other means needs to be taken as far as im concerned. Not giving children to homophobic idiots is a good thing in my opinion.
It's a loss for this child to the same extent that it's a loss for any child who might be adopted by a family that is of the opinion that gays are immoral, it's such an unimportant thing in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps you do stop some bigotry being spread, is that better than allowing this child to become one of the disproportionately high number of criminals who were in the foster system? Is the impact on society less?
.
