The
Associated press wrote for the
Washington Post about legislation in Virginia being passed that allows for
private adoption agencies to discriminate in their adoptions. The bill allows them to discriminate if the
placement is against any of their religious or moral beliefs, especially if the
placement is with a homosexual couple.
Some representatives and members of the gay community is saying that
this bill claiming religious freedom is a smokescreen covering up true
intentions of discriminating against the LGBT community. They say the bill denies LGBTs from forming
families. People against the bill say
this will just end up hurting the children waiting for a home, because they are
being limited on eligible homes. Other
representatives say there is nothing wrong with the bill, because they are
private agencies. They do say that
public, government funded agencies are not allowed to discriminate. Different agencies wrote letters to their
representatives about the bill. Some
were expressing how happy they were while other agencies asked for the bill not
to be passed because it makes it harder to place children waiting for homes. The agencies against the bill said that LGBT
are just as capable of providing stable homes.
The
issue that seems to be in the article is whether it is ok to discriminate in
adoptions. The article makes clear it is
only allowable for private agencies to discriminate and not for public
agencies, especially those funded by the government. Another issue is if it is ok for any private
agency to discriminate if they just claim it is their religious beliefs.
I
personally feel that this legislation is not in violation of any laws. The law does state that any organization that
is public or government funded is not allowed to discriminate. Churches are allowed to discriminate for
example to not hire women, or people of certain sexual orientations on the
basis of religious beliefs. Most private
adoption agencies are run by churches and for me it makes sense that they would
be allowed to place children based on beliefs.
I do not agree that it is ok to discriminate and limit children on possible
loving homes they could go to. I agree
with many against the bill that LGBT are just as capable of providing stable
homes. Many heterosexual couples get
divorced or break up, just because they are heterosexual does not mean that
makes them more stable. Despite my
beliefs I do agree that, like the case of the Presbyterian church and the
distribution of its land we studied in class, churches are allowed to have
jurisdiction over certain things that are run by the church or private
organization.
8 comments:
I agree with your thought that no laws are being broken, but just because no laws are being broken does not mean the action is the right action. It saddens me that there are children out there that do not have a family only because a private adoption agency will not allow members of the LGBT community to adopt. But, just as you pointed out, if the government required the private agencies to not discriminate in this instance, then the consequences (whether positive or negative) could lead to other instances where private agencies (and churches) cannot discriminate (such as you said with women as clergy). At that point it is the government overruling church doctrine, which I believe is wrong. As we saw in the Reynolds case, there are negative implications to government overruling church doctrine and it is not always constitutional.
I agree with the post, that there are no laws being broken. as a private adoption agency, they should or do have the right to place the children, wherever best they feel like.And for the LGBT community, they can always adopt from a public adoption agency, its not like the quality of the children goes down. they are children, all the same. Point is to adopt doesn't matter through public or private. so LGBT community should not be concerned with this bill.
When I first started reading this article, I had to think of the flip side as to whether a secular mother would want her child placed with an evangelical Christian family. It seems fair as long as a single group is not targeted.
However as stated, a majority of these private agencies are church run (and the children are already born and in the care of the church?) making it likely that the LGBT community will be the main, if not only, target. As long as the government gives religious institutions a certain autonomy there will be prejudice against and exclusions of women, the LGBT community, and in some cases certain ethnicities.
Gay and lesbians couples should not be allowed to adopt children unless those children are identified as either gay or lesbians themselves. The issue is not whether or not a gay or lesbian couple can provide a safe and/or loving home environment for a child; however the issue is whether or not the inevitable harm resulting from repeated lifelong exposure to an un-natural home environment outweighs any potential good or benefit.
Depending on the age of the child, the negative social, emotional, and physiological trauma inflicted on them by being brought up by same sex individuals can have lifelong implications. Gender confusion is a leading source of child hood and adolescent stress and oftentimes leads to anti social behavior as well as in many cases suicidal or homicidal outcome. A natural home environment consists of a genetic male and female cohabiting in shared resident providing a stable and safe home for any offspring that may result Feral children have been proven through scientific research to lack the essential skills to properly function and thrive in human society.
It is my belief that otherwise normal male and female children brought up in same sex households will be at a competitive disadvantage as compared to their peers brought up in traditional households. Similar to Feral children’s who are raised by animals such as wolves and dogs, same sex children will be incapable or at least encounter unnecessary barriers in respect to proper interpersonal social interactions.
If same sex individuals are allowed to adopt foster children’s and indoctrinate them into a lifestyle of perversion and sacrilege, these children and their offspring’s will threaten the very fabric of our society. Our society was established under rules of divine origin; the opposite of divine or natural order is the anarchy that results from individuals leading their lives in a manner that is contrary to basic human dignity. There are two fundamental social concepts that govern human interaction. The law of man and the law of animalistic indulgence. These two inherent systems of polar opposites and cannot coexist in harmony without disrupting the natural order of civilization. Therefore since homo-sexuality is a personification of the animalistic indulgence of the human species, this behavior threatens the harmony our society.
Wow, I just don’t know where to start with a response to this very emotional argument. I guess I can start first with the one thing I agree with, no child should be placed with homosexual parents that will try and make the child homosexual despite the child’s leanings. Then again though, I also think that no child should be placed with a heterosexual couple that will try and make them heterosexual despite their leanings. My biggest issue with your post is that we are talking about other human beings not animals. My personal experience has been that people in the gay community are just like people in society at large. I’ve know homosexuals that would be fabulous parents, ones that would be mediocre, and ones that I would cringe at the idea of them having a child, just like the heterosexuals I know.
Now as for the actual point of the article, that’s a much more complex point. Honestly my view on it would be very much dependant on how the children end up in the various agencies. If these private adoption agencies only have children that the parents have surrendered to them I would be more supportive of their right to discriminate despite my personal distaste for it. If they have any children though that come to them via DHS or any other kind of government agency I do not think that they should have the right to discriminate. I might even take it a step further and say like in the Bob Jones case where the church school was told they would lose their tax exempt status if they continued to discriminate and do the same thing with these agencies as they would no longer be a charity serving the general public.
I agree with Rebekah it does not seem fair to target a particular group. Since churches fund most of the private agencies it gives them a leeway to be able to discriminate. Until the churches do not accept the LGBT community there is nothing anyone can do, without overstepping on the church. I also believe that children can grow up to be “normal” when raised by a same-sex couple. As long as the children are in a safe and loving environment they should be “normal”. Most if not all LGBT have the same morals that everyone else has for example, it is not okay to kill, steal, or tell a lie. As long as basic morals are being taught then it should be okay for a child to be raised with a same-sex couple.
It really does seem like we need someone to discriminate against these days doesn't it? I mean, we already panned an ENTIRE religion due to the act of a few hundred, blacks are only just starting to get a decent end of the deal and we have Juuuust enough bigotry left over to go "I know, let's pass us some laws to prevent gay people from adopting." Because it's not like to adopt you have to go through an assortment of profiles, assessments and tests to prove you a fit parent. We just care that one has a penis and one has a vagina. It's far more healthy to leave a child in the care system, eating up government resources in an environment far more "unnatural" than would be provided by any homosexual based household. God Forbid we allow two people who love each other and want children, pass all criteria except gender preference from adopting. Oh wait. It IS that God thing, isn't it? Isn't God meant to be divorced from Government, ergo state and ergo Law?
And there was I thinking we were going to be running low on bigotry after it was all aimed at Muslims by idiots who've never read the Qu'ran, or by the Westboro Baptist Church (Who I believe may have tried to copyright it).
Lamentably, I was mistaken.
This post has incorporated many issues and gave room to alot of similar and different arguments. What i agree with according to this post is that no law is being broken.These private groups have a right because they are a private entity not bound by the government so how they work is according to their rules. What I view as an issue is the immoral actions being demonstrated in this case. I find that the issue is formed because of the people it affects.
Post a Comment