One thing for sure is that child will probably not grow up to be ignorant or prejudice against gays.

Firstly, I have at least one study that would disagree with you.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html

Explain that away why don't you?

No you haven't passed judgment on their relationship, but you sure as hell have on their ability to raise a kid. Newsflash, just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be able to have the chance to adopt a kid (or have a kid by other means even) based on their own merit as a couple.

What you prefer doesn't matter when it comes to whether someone should have the choice or not. I'd prefer my mom wouldn't drink as much as she does, but in the end the choice to do it or not is her own. Same thing should apply here.

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing a homosexual with a drug addict?
And you can't see how that is a bad comparison or how that is discrimination?

What about people who have sex with each other? Isn't that setting a bad example? Isn't sex a sin? Some religions treat it that way.

The point is, strait parents don't have sexual relations around their kids, why do you think anyone else would?




Possibly. Or some other religious view.



It has been shown? By whom? Where? Where are these studies? I want references. Don't just say things like that if you can't back them up.



That is not "faith" you have, that is "religion."
(Even if you were not religious, it is still discrimination.")

Gay people are born that way. I'm really sorry if that offends you.
Trans-genders are also born that way.

Nobody cares about how much or what kind of "faith" you have.

If you would rather a child be in the system or homeless rather than have a real home with a gay couple then you really don't know what the problem is.

And these children are probably unwanted or neglected children of unwed mothers who was convinced or prevented from getting an abortion by some righteous anti-abortion group.

I know enough. You are basing your own opinions on how you view another person and what rights they have, instead of viewing them as they are. That tells me all I need to know.

If the shoe fits......

No it wouldn't because you'd still be a bigot and be discriminating.

And I LOVE the extreme argument you use. A drug addict and a homosexual loving couple ARE NOT THE SAME THING! I don't care how you try and twist it, they're not. One is an obvious problem, the other is merely assumed in the eyes of those against gays. Huge difference.

********, it's only because of your beliefs that you think that. Being fair to the child is being objective, and this is far from that. This is exactly what's wrong with religion, you shove your views down people's throats with little regard for their feelings on the matter, and you use it as a reason to discriminate against others.

You don't wanna be discriminated against, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF!

Too bad, if you're gonna be fair, you have to be fair to all, and if you're can't or wouldn't be, then you never should have taken the position in the first place.

No one is saying you can't live how you want to, quit trying to twist everyone's words to make it seem like we're the bad guy. What we are saying, is you cross the line when you start to make choices for others such as the kids, based on what you think is right. You wanna live a certain way, go for it. But don't force it onto everyone else.

No! I am proposing a society based on personal responsibility, where you are responsible for yourself and what you do, not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore.

If anything I'd contend if the religious right had their way, we'd all be religious. How's that for a dictatorship?

not just dictating that because some people don't like what you do even when it's not harming anyone else that they can't do it anymore.

What difference would that make? I mean how would change things or what light would it shed on their current action?




Obviously there was choice to be made and for the charity the choice was not founded on logical concerns which will be discussed below.



The Catholic nonprofit sites two changes in the law that they cannot follow when placing children.

1. Single adult males or females who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees

2.A same-sex household in which the spouses/partners have been joined by civil union and who meet the criteria for providing some minimum ideal of a necessary environment will be qualified and allowed to be foster parents and adoptees

Sighting religious beliefs, the nonprofit ultimately felt that they could not place children in either of those two conditions. Fine – but are they now saying that they cared no more or less or provided no more or less to the outcomes of all these kids than what the state could or can provide?

If that’s the case, I don’t understand why they were in business using taxpayer dollars in the first place? Why was a non-secular charity given some share of funds which took away from the funds the state could have had for doing the exact same job with exactly the same outcomes?

In effect, the harm the nonprofit may have caused was to overburden the state before it was prepared to accept the 300 or so new children which actually put ALL the kids who are now and newly coming into the state system at higher risk for bad outcomes.

Aside from all that, the nonprofit and the leaders that backed the nonprofit (church officials) have stated that their rights to practice the religion of their choice has been infringed upon.

Now the nonprofit has always been required to meet the civil standards, and follow the civil law of every other state foster care or adoption agency. We need to make that point perfectly clear. THEY followed the civil law. The law was not made to accommodate their religious belief, which tends to be one of the silly little things many people of faith will intone as they continue to maintain that this country was founded on Christian principles. NO IT WAS NOT.

Then the law changed and it no longer accommodated the civil acceptance of discrimination that the nonprofit believes is part of their religious freedom. This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against.

You see how the propagation of misinformation can cause ineffectual thought processes? When people think this country was founded on Christian principles they also believe their religious freedoms take priority over the freedoms of others. Obviously they continue to suggest that ending discrimination will seriously affect Christian values because ending discrimination means changing the laws which many Christians have come to believe where created for the benefit of their religious freedom.

I suppose it’s best to be this direct all the time however, I do attempt to make people think for themselves but sometimes the Christian logic based on dogma and misinformation short circuits the thinking system.

I’ve said it often and I will repeat it; I think there will always be religious but people have to find a way to keep those beliefs in their OWN manner as a PERSONAL set of values and stop attempting to insert their individual values on others. We will be a more tolerant and accepting civilization if/when all people take responsibility for the content and context of human ethics and avoid mixing their personal religious beliefs with those ethics that guide civil law.

This caused the leaders of that NP to make their ridiculous inference that their freedom has been infringed upon – without EVER considering the children or the adults they were discriminating against.

It can be, and in this case it is.

Which is again why democracy fails. Because through it, one can discriminate against another by a majority.

Ooooh, looooooooooove Twilight Zone! And I adored the introductory narrative when I was a kid. Memorized it then and would say it under my breath when I was in school in an undesired situation.