Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.

[Tiberius]

Nice quote vortex. I'll try to parse this.

What quote vortex? At most he had one quote embedded within a quote, which is perfectly fine and understandable.

Your post is formatted terribly on the other hand; by leaving out quotes altogether, I had to scroll up and down the page repeatedly in order to figure out who you were responding to, and which points you were talking about.

There is a reason we use quotes here.

[Jaysyn]

Having bigoted parents, if that bigotry is the only big flaw these parents have, is still far better for the child than being an orphan.

False dilemma. They aren't the only foster parents in the world.

I agree with the position of the slippery slope. I mean if this is grounds to stop an adoption because it causes a detriment to the child, wouldn't your bigotry then possibly be grounds to refuse you a job as a teacher ?

Try being a known bigot & teach in the USA. That shit doesn't even fly down here in the south.

Or even good enough reason to call child services for abuse ?

No, because you are comparing a ward of the state with a natural child, legally not the same situation. That's the 4th time I've had to restate that in this thread.

---

Nice quote vortex. I'll try to parse this.

What quote vortex? At most he had one quote embedded within a quote, which is perfectly fine and understandable.

Your post is formatted terribly on the other hand; by leaving out quotes altogether, I had to scroll up and down the page repeatedly in order to figure out who you were responding to, and which points you were talking about.

There is a reason we use quotes here.

I couldn't parse it all when I was trying to respond, sorry. Kept breaking the quotes. Feel free to clean it up if you'd like.

[Tiberius]

I couldn't parse it all when I was trying to respond, sorry. Kept breaking the quotes. Feel free to clean it up if you'd like.

That ain't my job. That's your job. People are expected to spend time on their posts around here; I usually go through several revisions and re-reads before I'm happy to actually submit my post to be published.

You aren't required to change your post, but I'm just suggesting it would make it far easier to read if you actually included quotes. That way people who haven't read through the entire thread know what you are talking about.

[Jaysyn]

I couldn't parse it all when I was trying to respond, sorry. Kept breaking the quotes. Feel free to clean it up if you'd like.

That ain't my job. That's your job. People are expected to spend time on their posts around here; I usually go through several revisions and re-reads before I'm happy to actually submit my post to be published.

You aren't required to change your post, but I'm just suggesting it would make it far easier to read if you actually included quotes. That way people who haven't read through the entire thread know what you are talking about.

Ok, fixed it up.

[theVOID]

Nice quote vortex. I'll try to parse this.

Where? I had one broken quote tag, but that did not create a quote vortex, it resulted in ONE LINE of your post being outside the quote tags with a "[qutoe]" after it.

And now you've broken the context...

I'd already started by the time i saw you fixed the context.

1.) They do when the beliefs can have an adverse effect on a ward of the state.

You're just asserting that these beliefs would have an adverse effect on the child, the only adverse effect possible is that the child says something to offend someone else at a later point in time... Big fucking deal.

2.) I've given you both objective & subjective principles. Please quit trying to move the goalposts on me.

How and where did I attempt to do that? Disagreeing with your principle and thinking you are applying them inconsistently, resulting in a double standard, is NOT moving the goal posts.

3.) As I've said, the rights of natural parents supersede the rights of foster parents & potential adopters.

I know you've said that, you haven't explained WHY.

4.) I'm not sure what you are getting at, I've never said anything about anti-religious beliefs. We are talking about protected classes here. You are putting words in my mouth that have little to do with the matter at hand.

"Protected classes" is an arbitrary constraint you are using to mask your double standard. You believe that we should prevent people who are homophobic or racist from fostering or adopting children but not people who are just as hateful towards atheists or religious groups - When asked WHY you come up with the arbitrary "protected classes" you and DvF say something like "can't be otherwise" or "born that way" as if someone's potential not to believe in Islam in some alternative state of affairs entitles them to less protection from bigotry, it's the double standard that you must necessarily have in order not to be seen promoting a situation that would be an absolute detriment to the entire fostering/adoption system, that of letting no person with any bigotry adopt - There aren't enough families willing to foster relative to the number of children in need ALREADY, cracking down on something with such a small impact in the big picture would be detrimental to the welfare of the children.

5.) I am against bigotry period, not sure why you would think otherwise. I've never said anything should or shouldn't apply to people with anti-religious / atheist attitudes. I mentioned they were both protected classes in the workplace. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

So because Catholics generally would refuse to promote pro-gay attitudes we should prevent them from adopting? That would have a fucking terrible effect on the overall welfare of children needing foster care.

6.) Protected classes. Not sure why you can't understand that. If for some reason you don't think that children are very, very malleable when they are young then you are sorely mistaken.

I'm saying that your "protected classes" are bullshit, either measures to prevent bigotry are to be applied consistently or not at all, using "protected classes" to slice that bigotry blanket is a double standard.

7.) You are saying it's ok to promote racist & homophobic values to a child, I will never agree with you on that point. I will further never agree that the state shouldn't do what is legally in their power to do to prevent that from happening when it is in their ward's best interest. The well being of the ward trumps any privilege that you seem to think the couple in question has.

It's just as okay to promote racist and homophobic values as it is to promote anti-religious/atheist values, are you or are you not for preventing someone who refuses to promote a pro-atheist attitude from adopting?

8.) Yes, that is correct other than we are not talking about adoption.

No idea what the context is here.

9.) Then you wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Not having free time to care for a child & not making certain things available to a foster child are pretty big issues. I don't expect you to see that since you are way too hung up on the other side of this issue (The "rights" of the foster couple).

I agreed that not having sufficient time to properly care for the child was an acceptable criteria as it has a direct and significant impact on the welfare of the child. Telling them that it's not okay for gays to marry DOES NOT.

Not Rights either, I never said that people have a right to adopt because I don't believe anyone has any rights as far as an "increase" in value is concerned, rights are only concerned with the rights of someone not to have another person "decrease" the value of their life, such as your right to be free from force, coercion, fraud and negligence.

I simply have a problem with your double standard and the implications of being consistent when applying protections against bigotry on the state of the foster system, It will have a far bigger negative effect than positive.

10.) Not sure how I'd feel about that. Men aren't a protected class, but if they were vocal & obvious about it I don't think I'd place a child with them either, if I was the adoption agent.

Again with the "protected classes" bullshit! You absolutely require this double standard to avoid having a position that would have an obvious negative impact on the foster system.

[Jaysyn]

You win Void. If I can't use the existing legal standard of protected classes & that indoctrinating a ward of the state to have bigoted & racist beliefs against those protected classes is an objectively negative & unwanted thing, then I can't objectively justify choosing a non-homophobe or racist over anyone else for anything. All I have to fall back on is that it is evil, subjectively.

Thankfully, that isn't the way the real world works.

[theVOID]

We are debating a law... To fall back on "That's the law" is to completely neglect the point of the discussion.

Protected classes are arbitrary constraints used to mask a double standards, double standards are inequalities, thus to use them is to give people unequal rights, that is something that is much worse than people saying bigoted things, for that reason any consistent and rational application results in a state of affairs where either:

1. All bigoted people are unable to adopt or foster.

2. Bigotry is not a constraint on adoption or fostering

Case 1 would have a FAR more negative impact on the efficacy of the foster system and ultimately have a far larger negative impact on the child and society than the comparatively pithy impact of bigotry, for that reason 2. is the best option.

[Tiberius]

You win Void. If I can't use the existing legal standard of protected classes & that indoctrinating a ward of the state to have bigoted & racist beliefs against those protected classes is an objectively negative & unwanted thing, then I can't objectively justify choosing a non-homophobe or racist over anyone else for anything. All I have to fall back on is that it is evil, subjectively.

...and so you admit that all your arguments are based on nothing more than your own biased opinions, and cannot therefore be applied to the general way of things without resorting to some form of authoritarianism. Exactly what we stated at the beginning.

Thankfully, that isn't the way the real world works.

Yes, thank Jehovah we have "honest" politicians to think for us. </sarcasm>

[Jaysyn]

---

We are debating a law... To fall back on "That's the law" is to completely neglect the point of the discussion.

Protected classes are arbitrary constraints used to mask a double standards, double standards are inequalities, thus to use them is to give people unequal rights, that is something that is much worse than people saying bigoted things, for that reason any consistent and rational application results in a state of affairs where either:

1. All bigoted people are unable to adopt or foster.

2. Bigotry is not a constraint on adoption or fostering

Case 1 would have a FAR more negative impact on the efficacy of the foster system and ultimately have a far larger negative impact on the child and society than the comparatively pithy impact of bigotry, for that reason 1. is the best option.

---

[corndog36]

Having bigoted parents, if that bigotry is the only big flaw these parents have, is still far better for the child than being an orphan.

Knowingly placing a child into an environment where they will be indoctrinated into anti-social thinking is unacceptable. Growing up in an orphanage is certainly far from ideal, and there are good foster homes and bad ones, but the state has an obligation to protect children from abuse. They can't knowingly subject them to it.

I have 2 friends who are identical twin sisters, one is gay the other straight. I've done a lot of research on the issue and the bulk of the evidence suggests that homosexuality is environmental. Since gays are less likely to procreate, natural selection should have eliminated the trait long ago if it were genetic.

Not the case, firstly you can have the same genes as an identical twin but have different genetic expression, this is likely caused by different conditions/exposures in the womb, it is rare but not unheard of for twins to be exposed to different hormonal levels, if you are to have a set of genes that have the potential for homosexuality this hormonal difference can cause a difference in the expression of these genes, resulting in one being homosexual and the other heterosexual - This same gene will also be passed down through the straight and gay children laying in wait until such time as there is another similar hormonal imbalance causing different expression of the genes.

We're straying off topic here. Everything about us is genetic to some degree,but the statistics on the expression of homosexuality in humans and most mammals would indicate that we all have the gene, it's expression appears to be determined by environmental factors.

There are also plenty of closet homosexuals in heterosexual marriages, Ted Haggard being a well known example, that is another way for the genes to be passed down.

This phenomenon is too recent, in evolutionary terms, to explain the persistence of a 'gay gene'.