a prostitute is not automatically a bad parent either, or an 'escort', but Im sure it weighs pretty heavily on a decision of adoption based upon the 'environment' that would no doubt accompany that type of lifestyle,,,


a prostitute, should not be ruled out as a good parent either, BUT , unless no other options are available, Im sure she would likewise be often pushed down to the bottom of the 'good , better, best' list

You are pretty close with the exception of what I think a man and woman should do in a marriage. I have no problem with my wife working if she chooses. I would be very proud of her if she chooses to. I would also be very proud of her if she chose to stay at home to raise the kids. I would be willing to stay at home and raise the kids if that worked best as well. But being a man, I feel responsible to provide for and protect my family. So in general, I would love for her to want to stay home but I certainly wouldn't try to talk her into that if she wanted to work.

As far as what is good to be as adoptive parents, I wouldn't want a devil worshiper to adopt but other than that, if they have a good home, that is all that really would matter. I don't care what their faith is. I may take a second look if they were Muslim, but mostly because of how oppressive their faith is. There have been honor killings of children in the US before.

You never bothered to ask. You just started yelling saying I was wrong.

DUH!!

Because prostitution is ILLEGAL in most states.

Nevada being the exception.

Um, not even close.

That would be like comparing a mansion to a hovel and saying they are the same because they both provide shelter.

Well, if you think they can be good, why not give them a chance to prove it then? Put your money where your mouth is.

Explain what's different from a Muslim man pushing his religion on his kids, and a Christian man pushing his?

Not only that, but that environment is not healthy for the kid anyway, and you damn well know it msharmony.

Um, perhaps you were not listening this entire time?

I would prefer to put the child in the best environment possible. Why settle for good when you can have better or best?

Um, because the Muslim faith says you must be Muslim. They have very little tolerance for other faiths. That and they have a very oppressive life style.

Why is it less healthy than a homosexual relationship.

The entire argument stems from their sexual preference is no importance.

In general Prostitutes do not work out of their home. So how is it worse?

Why is it less healthy than a homosexual relationship.

The entire argument stems from their sexual preference is no importance.

In general Prostitutes do not work out of their home. So how is it worse?

And the Christian faith doesn't say you must be Christian, or has tolerance for other faiths? You're like the pot calling the kettle black dude.

Because the homosexual lifestyle is not endangering the child or setting a bad example of behavior, where the prostitute lifestyle can. This is really not that hard.

Ok, so being promiscuous is bad but being in a homosexual relationship is good.

Got it.

How exactly is a prostitute endangering their child's life?

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.

Simple, you force these people to adhere to your beliefs and in so doing strip them of their right to adopt a child and be judged as being able to adopt a child on their own ability to give them a good home as a couple. That's how.