From: My Immortal | #100 Are you serious? Like, this actually happened to you? What did they say? How can this even be possible?
Yup. The people came to meet with me to make sure I'd have a fit home for the dog, I introduced them to my boyfriend, they said this was not a fit home and left right away.
This seems like something that would happen in a parody video or something
My Immortal posted... Are you serious? Like, this actually happened to you? What did they say? How can this even be possible?
Yup. The people came to meet with me to make sure I'd have a fit home for the dog, I introduced them to my boyfriend, they said this was not a fit home and left right away.
XD what the hell is wrong with people? Was it some kind of agency or a private owner?
Also, my sophomore year of college, pretty much the same thing happened. My randomly assigned roommate walked in, I introduced him to myself and my boyfriend who was in my room and he instantly left and demanded a new room from our RD. >_>
My Immortal posted... Also, my sophomore year of college, pretty much the same thing happened. My randomly assigned roommate walked in, I introduced him to myself and my boyfriend who was in my room and he instantly left and demanded a new room from our RD. >_>
To be fair, if he was hoping to steal your girlfriend. Disappointment comes in many forms.
Again, we're getting back to the segregation example. Gay parents should have a civil right to adoption.
Again, liken it to the civil rights movement. I guess those black kids could just have gone to a different school, huh?
It's really not. In this case it is a religious institution making decisions based on their religious beliefs. The same as how a church should not be forced to allow gays to marry in their building simply because they are legally able to marry. The state should not be able to force a church to act in opposition to their beliefs. The decision should be up to the pastor and the congregation, not the government. Otherwise you have government dictating religion which is no better than religion dictating government.
So yeah, if it was a Morman church back in 1960 they should be able to turn down a black couple. Does that mean their beliefs are right? Not necessarily, but it is the beliefs of the institution and is well known to the people getting involved.
Sorry to hear that My Immortal, people can be idiots.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
My Immortal posted... To be fair, if he was hoping to steal your girlfriend. Disappointment comes in many forms.
Straight people should realize that having a gay friend is a GREAT way to meet girls!
As a straight guy who has had two gay roommates this is very true. And you never have to worry about competing with the roommate for the girl. Gay guys make great wingmen.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
From: DeepsPraw | #098 Again, we're getting back to the segregation example. Gay parents should have a civil right to adoption.
Again, liken it to the civil rights movement. I guess those black kids could just have gone to a different school, huh?
Don't get so hooked up on this.
It's like saying that it's bad that Muslims can't pray at Christian churches. Just go to a mosque, that's what they're for. "But omg that's segregation, separate can never be equal"
Not everything needs to accommodate everything else to be "equal". Anti-gay Christian adoption agencies don't need to accommodate gay people, as long as there are equal opportunities for those gay people to adopt elsewhere. There's no law that says adoption agencies can't adopt to gay people, or that the best children go to the Christian agencies and the gay ones get the scraps. You can have 2 agencies identical in quality, where one doesn't adopt to gays and the other does, and that's perfectly fair.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
foolm0ron posted... From: DeepsPraw | #098 Again, we're getting back to the segregation example. Gay parents should have a civil right to adoption.
Again, liken it to the civil rights movement. I guess those black kids could just have gone to a different school, huh? Don't get so hooked up on this.
It's like saying that it's bad that Muslims can't pray at Christian churches. Just go to a mosque, that's what they're for. "But omg that's segregation, separate can never be equal"
Not everything needs to accommodate everything else to be "equal". Anti-gay Christian adoption agencies don't need to accommodate gay people, as long as there are equal opportunities for those gay people to adopt elsewhere. There's no law that says adoption agencies can't adopt to gay people, or that the best children go to the Christian agencies and the gay ones get the scraps. You can have 2 agencies identical in quality, where one doesn't adopt to gays and the other does, and that's perfectly fair.
In this case it should also be a matter of availability. I'm honestly not sure how widespread adoption agencies are, but let's say you live in a small rural area and there's only one adoption agency within a 3 hour drive of where you live. In this case it would be unfair of the one agency to be anti-gay. On the other hand, if there are two within a block of each other, one that allows gay adoption and one that doesn't, let them do what they want.
From: foolm0ron | #120 Not everything needs to accommodate everything else to be "equal". Anti-gay Christian adoption agencies don't need to accommodate gay people, as long as there are equal opportunities for those gay people to adopt elsewhere. There's no law that says adoption agencies can't adopt to gay people, or that the best children go to the Christian agencies and the gay ones get the scraps. You can have 2 agencies identical in quality, where one doesn't adopt to gays and the other does, and that's perfectly fair.
That's fair, and it really doesn't become too big of an issue until all the kids at pro-gay-couple adoption agencies are all adopted (which sadly will never come to pass even with a large influx of gay couples looking to adopt) and the kids at Christian agencies are still waiting for homes.
It just sickens me that there are people who would rather let a kid grow up without a family than let him or her be raised by a gay couple.
--
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. http://bryandanielson.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/photo3.jpg
From: foolm0ron | #120 Not everything needs to accommodate everything else to be "equal". Anti-gay Christian adoption agencies don't need to accommodate gay people, as long as there are equal opportunities for those gay people to adopt elsewhere. There's no law that says adoption agencies can't adopt to gay people, or that the best children go to the Christian agencies and the gay ones get the scraps. You can have 2 agencies identical in quality, where one doesn't adopt to gays and the other does, and that's perfectly fair.
Except anti-gay adoption agencies are actively denying children a chance at finding a loving home just because the agency has a policy against gay people. It stops becoming about what gay people can and cannot do the second you involve the children.
How would you like to tell one of the kids that they might have been able to get adopted yesterday to a nice family with a lot of support, but they were gay, so you turned them away?
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
The church example doesn't apply because there are zero similarities between places of prayer and adoption agencies.
You say it's alright if it's equal, but the problem is that things are never always equal. Consider a gay couple living in the middle of nowhere, with only one adoption agency within 100 miles. If that agency is bigoted, then they're plum out of luck.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
red sox 777 posted... Not really. For as big an event as adopting a child, I'm sure you can travel more than 100 miles. Or 200. Or 300. This isn't the 1800s.
Sure, you could hop on a plane and spend more money, but why should you have to when there are kids nearby waiting for homes, and the only thing standing between them and you is a homophobe?
That isn't fair to the kids or to you.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
From: DeepsPraw | #125 The church example doesn't apply because there are zero similarities between places of prayer and adoption agencies.
Do you know how analogies work?
What if a Muslim couple is in the middle of nowhere and there's only a Christian church within 100 miles?
The thing with availability is that, you're going to have unfair areas of the country. Some places suck for gay people, some places suck for Muslim people, some places suck for mexicans, some places suck for poor people, etc., but the important part is that some places DON'T suck.
If you're not willing/able to move to a better place for the benefit of your child, how can you be a suitable parent?
Unless you know of a way (or even think it is possible) to make EVERYONE happy EVERYWHERE, then let me know how I can vote you into some position of power cuz I would like to see that.
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
red sox 777 posted... Not really. For as big an event as adopting a child, I'm sure you can travel more than 100 miles. Or 200. Or 300. This isn't the 1800s.
It's still not fair to have to though. And I'm pretty sure adoption isn't a one visit ordeal. It's not like you're driving 6 hours putting them in the car and then driving home. It's a pretty long process. I'm also pretty sure a lot of agencies want to meet with friends and family of the potential adoptors to see if it's a good home, good fit, etc. That would mean that you're either making an agency rep travel a long distance, or some of the adoptor's friends/family travel pretty far. I'd hope that if you're adopting you have friends that are willing to go the extra mile (ha) for you, but that doesn't make it fair.
foolm0ron posted... From: DeepsPraw | #125 The church example doesn't apply because there are zero similarities between places of prayer and adoption agencies. Do you know how analogies work?
What if a Muslim couple is in the middle of nowhere and there's only a Christian church within 100 miles?
The difference between a church and a mosque is vastly different than the difference between two adoption agencies. A church offers little to a Muslim, but for a gay couple looking to adopt, an adoption agency is just what they want.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
From: JaKyL25 | #123 Christian agencies are still waiting for homes
From: Biolizard28 | #124 Except anti-gay adoption agencies are actively denying children a chance at finding a loving home
From: DeepsPraw | #128 That isn't fair to the kids
That's an entirely different issue.
I dunno how the legislation works for these agencies, but they are private companies with literally complete power over the lives of many children. I imagine many of them will put the interests of the company over the well-being of the children, intentionally or not, but the way to fix that is to either: A. Let the government handle all adoption (almost definitely worse results) B. Let the demand for impartial agencies that don't refuse adoption based on bad criteria build so that new, impartial agencies pop up and overshadow the Christian ones
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
From: foolm0ron | #129 Unless you know of a way (or even think it is possible) to make EVERYONE happy EVERYWHERE, then let me know how I can vote you into some position of power cuz I would like to see that.
Puppies for everybody!
--
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. http://bryandanielson.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/photo3.jpg
From: red sox 777 | #076 Probably, but I don't think it's that clear cut. The WBC, for example, can easily exclude non-Christians from their church. The KKK can exclude black people from their membership. Why couldn't a charity exclude blacks from their membership, and then only facilitate adoptions between members?
Did you really just compare membership to the KKK to an adoption agency? What the hell is wrong with you?
From: foolm0ron | #129 Do you know how analogies work?
What if a Muslim couple is in the middle of nowhere and there's only a Christian church within 100 miles?
The thing with availability is that, you're going to have unfair areas of the country. Some places suck for gay people, some places suck for Muslim people, some places suck for mexicans, some places suck for poor people, etc., but the important part is that some places DON'T suck.
If you're not willing/able to move to a better place for the benefit of your child, how can you be a suitable parent?
Unless you know of a way (or even think it is possible) to make EVERYONE happy EVERYWHERE, then let me know how I can vote you into some position of power cuz I would like to see that.
I like this post
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
The church example doesn't apply because there are zero similarities between places of prayer and adoption agencies.
Except for the fact that there are literally Christian adoption agencies whose mission statements are to find a good Christian home for the kids there. I have friends using one of those right now and they were asked about their prayer life, how often they go to church, what denomination they were, etc. during the process. The parents who give up their children to that agency are doing so with the expectation that a certain type of family will adopt their child.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
foolm0ron posted... B. Let the demand for impartial agencies that don't refuse adoption based on bad criteria build so that new, impartial agencies pop up and overshadow the Christian ones
Except that will never happen. The existing agencies are already firmly established, and people aren't going to stop using them based on principle. Some might, but not nearly enough to make as big a difference as you're suggesting.
It's like Wal-Mart. Despite it's abysmal track record on human rights, it's still hugely popular and not slowing down.
Ethics and the free market don't mix. The only things that matter are money and ease of use.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
muddersmilk posted... The church example doesn't apply because there are zero similarities between places of prayer and adoption agencies.
Except for the fact that there are literally Christian adoption agencies whose mission statements are to find a good Christian home for the kids there.
You're missing the point entirely. Don't take my words out of context like that.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w
Did you really just compare membership to the KKK to an adoption agency? What the hell is wrong with you?
What if the KKK wanted to facilitate adoptions between its members? Could it do so legally? That is a pretty relevant question, I think. We all agree on this board that the KKK is bigoted, but does/should that matter legally?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
It's like Wal-Mart. Despite it's abysmal track record on human rights, it's still hugely popular and not slowing down.
If Wal-Mart had a track record of abusing the human rights of customers, it would quickly lose its popularity among shoppers. If Wal-Mart had a track record of abusing the rights of shareholders, its stock price would drop. If WMT had a track record of abusing the rights of employees, less people would choose to work there or they would demand higher wages. The third one is probably true, WMT isn't very high on people's list of companies they want to work for.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
You're missing the point entirely. Don't take my words out of context like that.
The point is that a Christian organization should not be forced by the government to go against its beliefs. What I'm saying is that from the Church's standpoint it is the same, which argues against the point you were making.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
From: DeepsPraw | #140 Ethics and the free market don't mix. The only things that matter are money and ease of use.
As someone who took a Business Ethics course last semester, I completely disagree with this. Johnson and Johnson's Tylenol recall comes to mind
--
Four Civil Union Ceremonies and a Funeral just doesn't have the same ring to it - yoshifan823 http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
Wal-Mart is basically McDonalds. They will hire anyone, and once people work there, realize it sucks and leave, they don't care, because they will hire anyone
--
We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable
red sox 777 posted... If Wal-Mart had a track record of abusing the human rights of customers, it would quickly lose its popularity among shoppers. If Wal-Mart had a track record of abusing the rights of shareholders, its stock price would drop. If WMT had a track record of abusing the rights of employees, less people would choose to work there or they would demand higher wages. The third one is probably true, WMT isn't very high on people's list of companies they want to work for.
While those things may drop, it really doesn't matter because Wal-Mart's ubiquity and low prices are such a huge counterweight.
Wal-Mart is in no danger of falling due to ethical reasons, plain and simple.
-- Jerry Sandusky is a football God! Jerry Sandusky is a football LEGEND! http://youtu.be/B3fRhOfkc_w