Michigan Allows Adoption Agents to Opt-Out of Adoption to Gay "Couples"

[Jroc]

So how many here would leave their kids with a man, who likes to dress as a women?

 

[Mr. H.]

So how many here would leave their kids with a man, who likes to dress as a women?

rdean, Jake, Delta4, Dot... the list is endless.

 

[mdk]

When so many married couples are eager to adopt, it makes no sense to give preference to homosexuals.

If they were so eager to adopt we wouldn't be having this conversation. Private adoption agencies can set up any rules they wish when it comes to adoptions. If they want to take funds from the government then there are strings attached. If they can't handle those strings then don't accept the government's money. If a gay couple/person can provide a stable and loving household then they should be allowed to adopt, just like any straight couple/person.

 

[Jroc]

When so many married couples are eager to adopt, it makes no sense to give preference to homosexuals.

If they were so eager to adopt we wouldn't be having this conversation. Private adoption agencies can set up any rules they wish when it comes to adoptions. If they want to take funds from the government then there are strings attached. If they can't handle those strings then don't accept the government's money. If a gay couple/person can provide a stable and loving household then they should be allowed to adopt, just like any straight couple/person.

Would you leave your kid with a tranny?

 

[Disir]

No federal funding allowed for those that insist on discriminating. Now, discriminate all you want as long as you're a private organization.

How is this discrimination?

Denying same sex couples the ability to adopt due to religious reasons.

You can do that. You just can't do that with federal funding. Nor should you be able to.

But the federal government gets a good deal of their revenue (through taxation) from people who do not agree with LGBT lifestyles and who (by their own volition) would choose not to offer such services in the first place.

And?

They get a good deal of revenue by those that don't have a problem with it.

People like to pretend that the good religious organizations are running orphanages. They aren't.

Religious organizations DO operate and maintain orphanages.

But back to the discussion at hand...

Even though I might oppose abortion, gay marriage, transgender access to public restrooms, etc., etc... I still have to pay for it. Right?

And to add insult to injury, so to speak, if I own a bakery and refuse to make a cake for a gay couple (even though it violates my own personal beliefs)... I get fined and bankrupted and run out of business.

It looks to me that "free speech" is only free to Liberals and no one else.

Not so much in the US. They have short term placement/treatment facilities but those are primarily for those kids with problems. These children are placed in foster care ASAP while said religious organization operates as a "case manager". Hence, adoption agent. So, they cry when they don't get the federal money as if they are irreplaceable. The reality is that many of those cases can just as easily be transferred or are being handled via the state as is.

But, I see your discussion at hand.

I feel the same way when I look at the top 3 religious charities that receive 2/3 of their funding via federal/state and local taxes. I feel the exact same way when I realize that the "private" and charter school funding is coming out of my taxes. It travels both ways.

 

[mdk]

When so many married couples are eager to adopt, it makes no sense to give preference to homosexuals.

If they were so eager to adopt we wouldn't be having this conversation. Private adoption agencies can set up any rules they wish when it comes to adoptions. If they want to take funds from the government then there are strings attached. If they can't handle those strings then don't accept the government's money. If a gay couple/person can provide a stable and loving household then they should be allowed to adopt, just like any straight couple/person.

Would you leave your kid with a tranny?

If I knew the person and trusted them? Sure.

 

[Jroc]

When so many married couples are eager to adopt, it makes no sense to give preference to homosexuals.

If they were so eager to adopt we wouldn't be having this conversation. Private adoption agencies can set up any rules they wish when it comes to adoptions. If they want to take funds from the government then there are strings attached. If they can't handle those strings then don't accept the government's money. If a gay couple/person can provide a stable and loving household then they should be allowed to adopt, just like any straight couple/person.

Would you leave your kid with a tranny?

If I knew the person and trusted them? Sure.

You so enlightened

 

[bripat9643]

In what seems like bracing to allow the conversation to continue in any eventuality of a Decision by SCOTUS, Michigan recognizing LGBT legally as behaviors and not a static class, allows adoption agents to essentially screen prospective couples for the presence of both a mother and a father before adopting children to them.
The logic is sound. The majority of people and many LGBTs themselves believe (and had) that children have an intrinsic and inaliable right to both a mother and a father in marriage. And in fact that states only get involved in marriage to incentivize both a mother and a father in marriage for the best benefit of kids.

Reuters) - Michigan's governor signed legislation on Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples on religious grounds, one of a series of Republican-backed measures at the state level targeting gay couples....The action comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling by the end of this month on whether same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide....It came on the same day that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina pushed through legislation permitting government officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages by citing religious objections, overriding the governor's veto....The Michigan bills that were signed into law let faith-based agencies that contract with Michigan refuse adoption services to couples on religious grounds. Michigan governor signs bills allowing gay-couple adoption refusal - News - WIBQ - 1230 AM Terre Haute IN - 1440 AM Paris IL

Will gays sue about this? Yes, of course. But they have the 1st Amendment as a hurdle. And this: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Michigan has no laws protecting gays from discrimination. And these are private organizations. I don't know that this was even necessary.

The bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding was also a "private organization."

 

[bripat9643]

Just when you thought Sil couldn't be any sillier...

There isn't anything the slightest bit silly about her post.

 

[bripat9643]

As long as those agencies don't receive any federal funding.

So you're willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to disgorge their vulnerable orphans to a cult whose messiah is a guy who sodomized vulnerable orphans boys?

Are you listening SCOTUS? You realize such blackmail will only hurt children. Our country will not be forced to surrender children to your cult members....under the threat of hurting children if we don't...

No federal funding allowed for those that insist on discriminating. Now, discriminate all you want as long as you're a private organization.

How about a private bakery?

 

[mdk]

Just when you thought Sil couldn't be any sillier...

There isn't anything the slightest bit silly about her post.

Then you've clearly had very little contact with Silhouette and her past ramblings.

 

[mdk]

When so many married couples are eager to adopt, it makes no sense to give preference to homosexuals.

If they were so eager to adopt we wouldn't be having this conversation. Private adoption agencies can set up any rules they wish when it comes to adoptions. If they want to take funds from the government then there are strings attached. If they can't handle those strings then don't accept the government's money. If a gay couple/person can provide a stable and loving household then they should be allowed to adopt, just like any straight couple/person.

Would you leave your kid with a tranny?

If I knew the person and trusted them? Sure.

You so enlightened

I wouldn't call leaving your children with someone you know and trust as 'enlightened' but whatever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to prevent giving their vulnerable orphans to a Cult of Hetero-Fascism whose messiah is a guy who sexually assaulted his little sisters.

 

[Silhouette]

I am willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to prevent giving their vulnerable orphans to a Cult of Hetero-Fascism whose messiah is a guy who sexually assaulted his little sisters.

Haven't seen a postage stamp of Josh Duggar. Only red faces, humiliation and shame. The key difference is in how the entire group of followers regards the behavior of their child predators. Non LGBTs by and large will never speak Josh Duggar's name again after all dust has settled. LGBTers not only speak Harvey Milk's name routinely, they have made a legal holiday after his socio-sexual "accomplishments", have memorials to him at ground zero (San Francisco California) and 60 + LGBT groups in Canada, Mexico and the US petitioned the USPS to issue a postage stamp of Harvey Milk with a rainbow "USA" next to his leering mug.

And they know his biography reports he sodomized runaway teen boys on drugs one...after....the...other.. The LGBTs defend Harvey Milk saying the boys were already ruined street hustlers and as such were fair sexual game for the pervert as he aged into his 40s. No Christian is defending Josh Duggar saying he somehow had the right to do what he did to the girls or that they girls deserved it. I can bet the house too that there won't be a postage stamp issued with Josh's mug and a crucifix next to it.

It's all the difference in how the criminal acts against children are received by the respective groups that explains the difference between their base values and defines which group is eligible to adopt kids in general (and upon clearing individual background interviews) and which isn't.

Viva la difference...

 

[Disir]

I am willing to use money as a club to force adoption agencies to prevent giving their vulnerable orphans to a Cult of Hetero-Fascism whose messiah is a guy who sexually assaulted his little sisters.

Haven't seen a postage stamp of Josh Duggar. Only red faces, humiliation and shame. The key difference is in how the entire group of followers regards the behavior of their child predators. Non LGBTs by and large will never speak Josh Duggar's name again after all dust has settled. LGBTers not only speak Harvey Milk's name routinely, they have made a legal holiday after his socio-sexual "accomplishments", have memorials to him at ground zero (San Francisco California) and 60 + LGBT groups in Canada, Mexico and the US petitioned the USPS to issue a postage stamp of Harvey Milk with a rainbow "USA" next to his leering mug.

And they know his biography reports he sodomized runaway teen boys on drugs one...after....the...other.. The LGBTs defend Harvey Milk saying the boys were already ruined street hustlers and as such were fair sexual game for the pervert as he aged into his 40s. No Christian is defending Josh Duggar saying he somehow had the right to do what he did to the girls or that they girls deserved it. I can bet the house too that there won't be a postage stamp issued with Josh's mug and a crucifix next to it.

It's all the difference in how the criminal acts against children are received by the respective groups that explains the difference between their base values and defines which group is eligible to adopt kids in general (and upon clearing individual background interviews) and which isn't.

Viva la difference...

Why do you lie? You have already been shown that you are in error on Harvey Milk. The entire passage was typed out for you.

 

[Silhouette]

The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts

page 180, "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".

I can quote more from the biography if you'd like?

 

[Disir]

The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts

page 180, "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems".

I can quote more from the biography if you'd like?

That passage was typed out for you. Again. Why do you insist on lying?

 

[Silhouette]

Milk 'inspiration' for new postage art
'Forever stamp' soon to be released in honor of homosexual activist
..biography of Milk called “The Mayor of Castro Street.”
Thomasson delivered copies of pages in the 1982 book to members of the California Assembly. The book describes Milk’s sexual relationships with a 16-year-old, a 19-year-old and other young men.
According to the book: “Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At thirty-three, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.” Harvey Milk inspiration for new postage art

The 16 year old was a legal minor. Milk officiated publicly as the boy's father while he was sodomizing him. Even while proof of that was delivered to the California Assembly, that state remains adamant that Milk is a "sexual hero" and requires children in schools there to celebrate Milk with commemorative exercizes each May 22nd.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps lying and will not condemn the Cult of Hetero-fascism that grooms children for adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

Jake keeps lying and will not condemn the Cult of Homo-fascism that seeks children for adoption.