Michigan law OKs faith-based adoption refusals

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's true - but I've seen abusive, bad parents lose custody of their children. The state comes in and puts children into the foster system routinely, to help take them out of neglectful or dangerous situations.

We could require that people be licensed to procreate - have to pass medical exams, psyche evaluations, etc. We could also stipulate that any broken home is an emotionally unstable home - so divorcees lose custody of their kids in favor of foster homes and adoptions - where both parents are present, and constantly working on their relationship and through their problems.

There are a lot of things that could be done - that from the public's perspective is intrusive and controlling. Even I think that's intrusive and controlling.

I think that the mother/father roles in a child's development is important.

But hey - what do I know?

CdT

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
That's true - but I've seen abusive, bad parents lose custody of their children. The state comes in and puts children into the foster system routinely, to help take them out of neglectful or dangerous situations.

True. And that's as it should be, regardless of the gender of the parents.

The question for me comes down to: Do I want to live in a nation where other people decide who has the right to be parents based on their gender? And the answer is absolutely not. I believe in individual freedom. Only when parents are proven to be neglectful or dangerous should the state step in for a closer look.

I don't want to live in a nation that requires a litmus test for something as personal as being a parent.

I think that the mother/father roles in a child's development is important.

There's no indication that the gender of the parents has any negative effect on the child. MANY children are raised in single-parent homes. If the mother and father roles are so important, perhaps we should outlaw divorce.

It's OK to have personal opinions, like 'each child deserves to have a mother and a father'. But MY personal opinions should not be a deciding factor for YOU to have a child. Not if we're free.

I'm tired of the nanny bull#. Check them bastards.

This law will be challenged in court. Mark my words, it will be repealed.

a reply to: Metallicus

They can't legally consent in the same way as an adult, but that is what the adoption agency is for. They research the possible parents of the child to be adopted and make sure they are stable and will make a good home. That is the same or better than an adult making a consented choice. The agency is just acting as the adult in this situation.

Also, I'm pretty sure most kids want to be adopted but if for some reason they don't want to be with the family that has chosen them I don't think the agency can force them to. So in a way they do have some say in it.

I'm curious though. If you're only concerned about the child having consent do you feel the same way about them getting adopted by a hetero couple as well??? Or do you just naturally think a hetero couple would be acceptable by default while a homo couple is not???

Im pretty liberal, but i do think a kid should have a masculine and feminine figures to look up to when growing up, this goes for single parents too.

I seen men grew up with single mom who shy away from social situation and doubt their self worth and women with single dads who kept problems bottled up inside.

originally posted by: luciddream
Im pretty liberal, but i do think a kid should have a masculine and feminine figures to look up to when growing up, this goes for single parents too.

I seen men grew up with single mom who shy away from social situation and doubt their self worth and women with single dads who kept problems bottled up inside.

I've seen children who have both parents growing up that have problems too. Every situation is different and you can't just use a few examples across the board. There are kids who lose both parents and are raised by extended family, there are kids who only have one parent, etc. but they don't all turn out the same. There are a million other influences besides the number and sex of your family that determine what you'll be like when you grow up.

About all that can be said for sure is that it's better to have 2 loving parents than only 1. Regardless of sex or color or anything else, the more people that love and want to care for you the better, the rest are just details.

a reply to: mOjOm

You make some really good points.

I wouldn't have half the issues I've had in my life if my father had been absent. By all outward appearances, we were a good, strong, Christian family, but every one of us was "damaged" by my father's presence in our lives. So, there are plenty of examples of that side, too.

a reply to: Metallicus

Well if it helps any I agree with you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TNMockingbird

For one, gender roles are completely arbitrary. For two, girls learn how to be girls from more sources than just their mother and boys learn how to be boys from more sources than just their father.

Completely arbitrary? Not even close. The very fact that a man CANNOT have a baby blows that out of the water.

Men and women ARE different. We react differently both physiologically and emotionally. The body structure is also different. Have a male lean over and rest his head on the wall, pickup a chair and then try to straighten up. Can't do it. A woman can.

a reply to: dismanrc

Gender ROLES are arbitrary. I didn't say that gender was arbitrary. Maybe next time read that more carefully before responding.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Have a male lean over and rest his head on the wall, pickup a chair and then try to straighten up. Can't do it. A woman can.

And how important is that in raising a child in a loving home? Yes, there are differences, both physical and not, but I can easily find you two women who are more different from each other than a particular man and woman. That's just an excuse to discriminate.

Let's talk science

Evolution set up the family unit, one way. With a mother and a father
Statistics show us kids with single parents are at a huge disadvantage then kids with a mother and father.

The really brave people, are the ones who grew up with two gay parents, and love them but they admit that they had an internal evolution longing for the nuclear family and not having a nuclear family hurt them.

Let's ignore science and evolution, if feelings are envolved

disqus.com...

originally posted by: thinline
Let's talk science

Evolution set up the family unit, one way. With a mother and a father
Statistics show us kids with single parents are at a huge disadvantage then kids with a mother and father.

The really brave people, are the ones who grew up with two gay parents, and love them but they admit that they had an internal evolution longing for the nuclear family and not having a nuclear family hurt them.

Let's ignore science and evolution, if feelings are envolved

disqus.com...

This is a completely unscientific approach to this problem (and a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory). For one, evolution doesn't "set things up". Species just evolve, then mutations happen or the environment changes and things evolve in other directions. There is no decree anywhere within the theory of evolution that species have to follow some preset evolutionary pattern.

Another point. Evolution is about small chance mutations causing a subset of the population to deviate from the norm. In this view, we see that same sex couples (an example of deviating from the norm) is just another application of evolutionary processes taking hold. Evolution is about CHANGING the status quo, not maintaining it.

The most important thing is the children are raised in a safe and loving home . If the parents meet the standards required to adopt then it should not matter if the parents are same sex or not. However imo if there is a same sex couple and heterosexual couple that both meet the requirements to adopt the heterosexual couple should be given preference.
Religion should play no part in the adoption process. In my own personal experience my friends with very devout and religious parents had the most maladjusted upbringing out of all the different family units. And lets not even start on the track record of churches and their treatment of children.

originally posted by: oddnutz
The most important thing is the children are raised in a safe and loving home . If the parents meet the standards required to adopt then it should not matter if the parents are same sex or not. However imo if there is a same sex couple and heterosexual couple that both meet the requirements to adopt the heterosexual couple should be given preference.

How about just giving both families a child? There are plenty of adoptable children to go around.

Though, in cases where a shortage of adoptable children are available (fat chance of that), I'd say that your solution is rather discriminatory. I'd give the child to the family that asked first.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well if there are enough children to be adopted then i do not see a situation where a choice has to be made between a hetero and same sex couple. Down here in sunburn country adoption waiting lists are long as there are nowhere near the same number of parentless children as in other parts of the world.

a reply to: oddnutz

Then in that case, like I said earlier, the fairest method is the first come first served method. Catering to the hetero couple in cases of supply shortages just shows that homo couples still aren't as equal as hetero couples.