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

[Silhouette]

SKYLAR'S EXTREMELY DISTURBING REVELATION:

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays.

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

There is one compelling and overriding reason: a marriage must provide both a mother and a father to children. So each individual "gay couple" basis must be denied by them; regardless of whether or not they pay homage to (or refuse to denounce) Harvey Milk the child sodomizer, or whether or not they've been dry-humping (or applauding that) in an LGBT parade in the presence of children..Their very existence as "coupled-sodomites" is forbidden to Christians to place children around in a "marriage" setting..

There's no such requirement. As no one is required to have children or be able to have them. Ending your entire basis of argument. In many states it isn't even required that a couple adopt a child. Individuals can. Disproving your made up requirement yet again.......And I'm perfectly fine with that. On the condition that they receive no state or federal funding. If its privately operated, privately owned, and privately funded, then more power to them. If they are receiving state funds, they are subject to state rules.

In the case of Michigan there are no protections for gays. So state rules wouldn't be an impediment. For those states that do have such protections, state funded private adoption agencies would have a choice: abandoned discrimination of gays, or abandon state funding.

First, the point you're trying to make that "marriage doesn't require children" is just a blatant strawman. The question we're talking about is whether or not adoption agents can deny a couple filling out an application based on whether or not the "marriage" will include upon the completion of adoption, both a father and a mother. Sodomite-institutionalizing is not to be enabled by any Christian in a cultural setting. Marriage is the hub of any culture. Jude 1 does IN FACT tell Christians this in no uncertain terms...about the spread of a homosexual culture. A home's formative environment for kids/future adults is the first level of social-institutionalizing.

Second, and more importantly, I note that your ilk has again suggested a whip/punishment for adoption agencies if you cannot get your way by legal shoehorn to access children you all desperately want to get to. Your solution is to hurt adoption agencies until they either shut down or disgorge their wards to your cult upon your demand. In other words, your solution is to ultimately hurt the children until their custodians can no longer afford to feed, clothe or house them. And in this insidious plan, your blackmail will force them to hand kids over to you whether or not in their best interest or best judgment to do so. You are displaying for all to see, the complete willingness to use the food, clothes and housing of orphaned children as a weapon to force children into homes of "married couples" who provide them either with no mother or no father..

 

[Montrovant]

SKYLAR'S EXTREMELY DISTURBING REVELATION:

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays.

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

There is one compelling and overriding reason: a marriage must provide both a mother and a father to children. So each individual "gay couple" basis must be denied by them; regardless of whether or not they pay homage to (or refuse to denounce) Harvey Milk the child sodomizer, or whether or not they've been dry-humping (or applauding that) in an LGBT parade in the presence of children..Their very existence as "coupled-sodomites" is forbidden to Christians to place children around in a "marriage" setting..

There's no such requirement. As no one is required to have children or be able to have them. Ending your entire basis of argument. In many states it isn't even required that a couple adopt a child. Individuals can. Disproving your made up requirement yet again.......And I'm perfectly fine with that. On the condition that they receive no state or federal funding. If its privately operated, privately owned, and privately funded, then more power to them. If they are receiving state funds, they are subject to state rules.

In the case of Michigan there are no protections for gays. So state rules wouldn't be an impediment. For those states that do have such protections, state funded private adoption agencies would have a choice: abandoned discrimination of gays, or abandon state funding.

First, the point you're trying to make that "marriage doesn't require children" is just a blatant strawman. The question we're talking about is whether or not adoption agents can deny a couple filling out an application based on whether or not the "marriage" will include upon the completion of adoption, both a father and a mother. Sodomite-institutionalizing is not to be enabled by any Christian in a cultural setting. Marriage is the hub of any culture. Jude 1 does IN FACT tell Christians this in no uncertain terms...about the spread of a homosexual culture. A home's formative environment for kids/future adults is the first level of social-institutionalizing.

Second, and more importantly, I note that your ilk has again suggested a whip/punishment for adoption agencies if you cannot get your way by legal shoehorn to access children you all desperately want to get to. Your solution is to hurt adoption agencies until they either shut down or disgorge their wards to your cult upon your demand. In other words, your solution is to ultimately hurt the children until their custodians can no longer afford to feed, clothe or house them. And in this insidious plan, your blackmail will force them to hand kids over to you whether or not in their best interest or best judgment to do so. You are displaying for all to see, the complete willingness to use the food, clothes and housing of orphaned children as a weapon to force children into homes of "married couples" who provide them either with no mother or no father..

You are the one who continuously harps about how marriage is about the children. Now, when that narrative hurts your point, you suddenly abandon it?

 

[Skylar]

The requirement to or not to be able to have children physically is strawman.

Obvious nonsense. As the standards you're using to exclude gays from marriage don't exist. Nor apply to anyone. No one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. Not in 1 state.

You're offering us the pseudo-legal gift bag of made up 'requirements'. Insisting that gays don't meet the 'requirement' of a mother and a father. No such requirement exists. Or the 'static status' requirement. Which is made up bullshit, having no legal basis. Or the 'prove they are a religion' requirement. Which again, doesn't exist. You've made it up.

None of your pseudo-legal gibberish has any relevance to the law. Rendering it meaningless noise.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

 

[Skylar]

SKYLAR'S EXTREMELY DISTURBING REVELATION:

Here's just a little of the problem with your argument. You are equating the actions of some gays to all gays.

I see no reason that adoption agencies cannot take each case on an individual basis. Just because gays are allowed to adopt does not mean every gay couple who applies will be accepted. Your reasoning (and I am generous in applying that term to it) is deeply flawed.

There is one compelling and overriding reason: a marriage must provide both a mother and a father to children. So each individual "gay couple" basis must be denied by them; regardless of whether or not they pay homage to (or refuse to denounce) Harvey Milk the child sodomizer, or whether or not they've been dry-humping (or applauding that) in an LGBT parade in the presence of children..Their very existence as "coupled-sodomites" is forbidden to Christians to place children around in a "marriage" setting..

There's no such requirement. As no one is required to have children or be able to have them. Ending your entire basis of argument. In many states it isn't even required that a couple adopt a child. Individuals can. Disproving your made up requirement yet again.......And I'm perfectly fine with that. On the condition that they receive no state or federal funding. If its privately operated, privately owned, and privately funded, then more power to them. If they are receiving state funds, they are subject to state rules.

In the case of Michigan there are no protections for gays. So state rules wouldn't be an impediment. For those states that do have such protections, state funded private adoption agencies would have a choice: abandoned discrimination of gays, or abandon state funding.

First, the point you're trying to make that "marriage doesn't require children" is just a blatant strawman. The question we're talking about is whether or not adoption agents can deny a couple filling out an application based on whether or not the "marriage" will include upon the completion of adoption, both a father and a mother. Sodomite-institutionalizing is not to be enabled by any Christian in a cultural setting. Marriage is the hub of any culture. Jude 1 does IN FACT tell Christians this in no uncertain terms...about the spread of a homosexual culture. A home's formative environment for kids/future adults is the first level of social-institutionalizing.

Second, and more importantly, I note that your ilk has again suggested a whip/punishment for adoption agencies if you cannot get your way by legal shoehorn to access children you all desperately want to get to. Your solution is to hurt adoption agencies until they either shut down or disgorge their wards to your cult upon your demand. In other words, your solution is to ultimately hurt the children until their custodians can no longer afford to feed, clothe or house them. And in this insidious plan, your blackmail will force them to hand kids over to you whether or not in their best interest or best judgment to do so. You are displaying for all to see, the complete willingness to use the food, clothes and housing of orphaned children as a weapon to force children into homes of "married couples" who provide them either with no mother or no father..

You are the one who continuously harps about how marriage is about the children. Now, when that narrative hurts your point, you suddenly abandon it?

Of course he does. He talked about how it was 'all about the children'. But when I pointed out that his proposals only hurt children, he insisted that the children he would hurt weren't the children he was talking about.

There's only standard with Sil: irrational animus toward gays. Everything else is a horse for him to ride....and discarded just as easily the moment it doens't let him attack gays.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

 

[Montrovant]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

You consider requiring businesses/agencies which receive government funding to abide by state or federal discrimination laws a form of blackmail?

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

You consider requiring businesses/agencies which receive government funding to abide by state or federal discrimination laws a form of blackmail?

Yes, I do. Especially when starving children of food, shelter and clothing is the net result of the threats.

Anyone who can do that is an abuser of children and no matter what subject we're talking about at that point, the person no longer qualifies to adopt kids.

 

[Montrovant]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

You consider requiring businesses/agencies which receive government funding to abide by state or federal discrimination laws a form of blackmail?

Yes, I do. Especially when starving children of food, shelter and clothing is the net result of the threats.

Anyone who can do that is an abuser of children and no matter what subject we're talking about at that point, the person no longer qualifies to adopt kids.

So if an adoption agency were allowing gay couples to adopt children and the law said gays cannot adopt, so the state cut off funding to said agency, would you consider that blackmail? I am confident that you would, instead, be behind that 100%.

 

[Silhouette]

Depends on how you feel about rights of exercise of freedom of religion. But you don't hold orphans' food, clothing and shelter hostage while that debate is on the table..

 

[rdean]

Pity. Many gay couples adopt disabled children or children of color that disgusting and heartless right wingers don't want. They only want them born. Terrible, depriving children of a good life just because the fuckers hate gays more then they act like what they claim being Christian is all about. Such dirty people. Heartless, mean and awful. If they truly believe in Heaven and Hell, we can only hope they get what they deserve.

 

[mdk]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The State of Illinois passed a law stating that adoption agencies using state funds couldn't discriminate against gays. Do you have any proof that children are starving in the streets as a results? Yeah, I didn't think so. All you care about is smearing gay people. You're concern for children ends the instant you can't use them to harm gay people.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.
A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[rdean]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The State of Illinois passed a law stating that adoption agencies using state funds couldn't discriminate against gays. Do you have any proof that children are starving in the streets as a results? Yeah, I didn't think so. All you care about is smearing gay people. You're concern for children ends the instant you can't use them to harm gay people.

Idiot. Your life can be hell in an institution and that doesn't mean you are "starving in the street". Wish you fuckers were such fools. It would make this a better country.

 

[mdk]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The State of Illinois passed a law stating that adoption agencies using state funds couldn't discriminate against gays. Do you have any proof that children are starving in the streets as a results? Yeah, I didn't think so. All you care about is smearing gay people. You're concern for children ends the instant you can't use them to harm gay people.

Idiot. Your life can be hell in an institution and that doesn't mean you are "starving in the street". Wish you fuckers were such fools. It would make this a better country.

I am pretty sure you totally misread my point but whatever.

 

[rdean]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The State of Illinois passed a law stating that adoption agencies using state funds couldn't discriminate against gays. Do you have any proof that children are starving in the streets as a results? Yeah, I didn't think so. All you care about is smearing gay people. You're concern for children ends the instant you can't use them to harm gay people.

Idiot. Your life can be hell in an institution and that doesn't mean you are "starving in the street". Wish you fuckers were such fools. It would make this a better country.

I am pretty sure you totally misread my point but whatever.

You're right, I did. Sorry.

 

[mdk]

Skylar said he believes it is right and proper to blackmail adoption agencies (the children who depend on their food, clothing and shelter) until they disgorge children to motherless or fatherless "marriages" against their better judgment of what is best for the child. That's like holding up a stick of dynamite to the adoption agency and saying "give me you children or our blow up the orphanage!"

Nope. You'll hallucinating again. I said if a private agency is receiving state funds, its subject to state rules. And if the state rules prohibit discrimination of gays, the private agency can either abide the state rules, or cease taking state funding.

A private agency that is privately funded can do what it wants.

So are you claiming that you are 1. Unaware that those funds feed, clothe and give shelter to the children of those private agencies or 2. Aware but willing to use starving children of those necessities in your war on religion?

And, what are "gays" exactly; in precise legal terminology? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The State of Illinois passed a law stating that adoption agencies using state funds couldn't discriminate against gays. Do you have any proof that children are starving in the streets as a results? Yeah, I didn't think so. All you care about is smearing gay people. You're concern for children ends the instant you can't use them to harm gay people.

Idiot. Your life can be hell in an institution and that doesn't mean you are "starving in the street". Wish you fuckers were such fools. It would make this a better country.

I am pretty sure you totally misread my point but whatever.

You're right, I did. Sorry.

No worries. Cheers!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While this thread poses the question of whether or not an adoption agency should be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the question that looms larger is, why is there even a question about gays adopting?

In my experience, there are two main reasons why anyone opposes adoption by gay and lesbian people with some degree of overlap. One is a misguided understanding of what their religion requires and prohibits. The other, which has a number of variations on the theme, is a bigoted and ignorant view of gay people’s fitness and effectiveness as parents, as well as a distorted understanding of what children need.

In addition, those are, for the most part, the same people who oppose same sex marriage, while ignoring the fact that there are numerous children already in the care of gay people through means other than agency adoption, who would benefit by their parent’s ability to marry. Following is an op-ed that I penned a while back:

Marriage Equality…The Right Thing to do For The Children by Progressive Patriot 9.26.13

Many opponents of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children.

And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.

Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any significantly greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. Of course, some gay and lesbian couples will employ various means to have children, but those are children who would not have otherwise been born. The most significant effect by far will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents.

And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how they would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible. Those who still oppose same sex marriage but claim to care about the children are liars and hypocrites.

 

[Silhouette]

Many opponents of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures...

OK, so which of those "variety structures" would you force the 50 states to incentivize with tax breaks "as married"? And which wouldn't you allow? And how is it a minority, waffling behavioral group gets to decide these things again; or to inadvertently bamboozle an unwieldy precedent on which other minority behavioral groups will follow?

Shouldn't the states' majorities be able to choose what parenting situation is best for children (who marriage is for and about ultimately) and set that as law instead of being forced to lose money on "anything goes marriage"?

You do realize the quagmire this situation is heading towards. Some call it a slippery slope. But more properly it's a legal-quagmire. And now we have people like Skylar and others foreshadowing the near-future legal plan to starve orphans until orphanages cave to LGBT demands..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Many opponents of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures...

OK, so which of those "variety structures" would you force the 50 states to incentivize with tax breaks "as married"? And which wouldn't you allow? And how is it a minority, waffling behavioral group gets to decide these things again; or to inadvertently bamboozle an unwieldy precedent on which other minority behavioral groups will follow?

I have no idea what you are rambling on about but it's apparent that you didn't get much out of my post.