• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas proposes law that would allow adoption agencies to ban Jews, Muslims, gays

ibelsd said:
I've asked both you and SD to support your argument and neither of you have been able to do so. Do the number of willing homes decrease because of this Texas law?
Click to expand...

Its not a question of the number of willing homes. Its the number of homes that get approved could decrease.

Example:

Child is listed with Agency A.

Agency A will not approve anyone that is not an Evangelical Christian to adopt. Family that is not religious applies to adopt child. Agency will not approve them because they are not religious. Moreover, because the agency believes the child should only be adopted by Evangelical Christians, they won't release the child to another agency, thus the child is most likely never adopted.

This is why it is a terrible idea to allow an agency to use religion or sexual orientation as criteria for approving adoptions.
 
danarhea said:
When they started going after the Muslims and gays, I knew it would only be a matter of time until they started going after the Jews too. And, IMHO, the Jews have always been the canary in humanity's coal mine. The slope now gets slippery.
Click to expand...
More alarmism. Allowing a private adoption agency (Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Christian or secular) to operate according to their own internal rules is not "going after" anybody- though it does make for juicy sounding accusations.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
When religious freedom means treating orphans as though they are a crop on a farm where they grew Christians and thus will only adopt them out to what they see as Christian homes, then it is indeed oppression.
Click to expand...
Every adoption agency reserves the right to place children in what they- and not society at large, deems to be a "good home". Different agencies may well have different definitions of a "good home". There is no need to force all agencies to comply with one definition- especially when that definition is imposed.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Every adoption agency reserves the right to place children in what they- and not society at large deems as a "good home". Different agencies may well have different definitions of a "good home". There is no need to force all agencies to comply with one definition- especially when that definition is imposed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

As long as said agency is operating independently and not using government money.
 
Cryptic said:
Every adoption agency reserves the right to place children in what they- and not society at large deems as a "good home". Different agencies may well have different definitions of a "good home". There is no need to force all agencies to comply with one definition- especially when that definition is imposed.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. As I pointed out earlier, we have adopted twice. Every adoption agency must use the criteria established by the states they are licensed in for determining adoption eligibility and home studies.

If you look back through the thread, I explained why it is a bad idea to allow agencies to screen applicants using religion or sexual orientation as criteria.

From an earlier post:

Example:

Child is listed with Agency A.

Agency A will not approve anyone that is not an Evangelical Christian to adopt. Family that is not religious applies to adopt child. Agency will not approve them because they are not religious. Moreover, because the agency believes the child should only be adopted by Evangelical Christians, they won't release the child to another agency, thus the child is most likely never adopted.

This is why it is a terrible idea to allow an agency to use religion or sexual orientation as criteria for approving adoptions.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Child is listed with Agency A.

Agency A will not approve anyone that is not an Evangelical Christian to adopt. Family that is not religious applies to adopt child. Agency will not approve them because they are not religious. Moreover, because the agency believes the child should only be adopted by Evangelical Christians, they won't release the child to another agency, thus the child is most likely never adopted.

This is why it is a terrible idea to allow an agency to use religion or sexual orientation as criteria for approving adoptions.
Click to expand...

Or...allow for various adoption agencies (Christian, secular, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic) to accept state contracts and operate by their own exclusionary internal rules. If and exlusionary agency cannot place the child in "X" number of months, the child is returned to the State and the State can assign the child to a non exclusionary agency.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely.

As long as said agency is operating independently and not using government money.
Click to expand...

Whether they are operating independently or using government money is irrelevant. Either way, they are legally obligated to use the criteria of the state they are licensed in for screening adoptive parents and home-studies. When an agency applies to be licensed in a state, they agree to that condition. As well they should because a kid's future should not be left up to the whims or bigotry of an agency.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Whether they are operating independently or using government money is irrelevant. Either way, they are legally obligated to use the criteria of the state they are licensed in for screening adoptive parents and home-studies. When an agency applies to be licensed in a state, they agree to that condition. As well they should because a kid's future should not be left up to the whims or bigotry of an agency.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Can a Catholic adoption agency for example, operating solely with funds from the church, not insist that adoptive parents be also Catholic?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Whether they are operating independently or using government money is irrelevant. Either way, they are legally obligated to use the criteria of the state they are licensed in for screening adoptive parents and home-studies. When an agency applies to be licensed in a state, they agree to that condition.
Click to expand...
Texas wants to delegate components of that criteria to each individual adoption agency. Thus, they are no longer legally obligated to use the State's definition in its totality.
SouthernDemocrat said:
As well they should because a kid's future should not be left up to the whims or bigotry of an agency.
Click to expand...
And the best way to protect that interest is for the state to withdraw unplaced children from an exclusionary agency after "X" amount of time- not dictate what criteria each agency must use.
Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely.

As long as said agency is operating independently and not using government money.
Click to expand...
I agree that a State can make this requirement. At the same time, a State can also be free to contract with any number of private groups with any number of internal rules- so long as the State is equally willing to entertain contracts from say Hindu groups and Christian ones.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Or...allow for various adoption agencies (Christian, secular, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic) to accept state contracts and operate by their own exclusionary internal rules. If and exlusionary agency cannot place the child in "X" number of months, the child is returned to the State and the State can assign the child to a non exclusionary agency.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but that is simply a terrible idea. There are millions more orphans worldwide than there are families willing to adopt. It is extremely rare for an orphan to have more than one family to ever attempt to adopt them. Moreover, in many countries, orphans age out of the system fairly early on. For example, at 14, a kid in China is no longer eligible. So why on earth would you allow them to be listed with an agency that would screen out otherwise qualified families simply based upon their religious beliefs or sexual orientation, when that might be that kid's only chance at a family. Its flat out unconscionable.

We adopted special needs twice from China. We went through a Christian agency. We didn't choose that agency because they were a Christian agency, but rather because they were reputable agency that happened to be Christian and they were the ones that had the girls we were interested in adopting. My wife and I are not religious. So had they refused to allow us to adopt because we were not religious, then our girls would still be in China. One of our daughters has Cerebral Palsy. China is not like the USA. There is no safetynet there. They don't do a good job of taking care of those with disabilities. So had we not adopted her, chances are no one would have (way more orphans than families willing to adopt). Thus she would have spent her childhood in a ****hole "social welfare institute" in China where she would have received little to no education, no physical therapy, and malnourished. Once she became an adult, she could look forward to life on the streets as a beggar. Moreover, she would be branded with the surname of Yu, so that anyone in China would know she grew up in an orphanage without any education.

That didn't happen of course because our religion was not part of the criteria for our being approved to adopt, but rather it was what kind of a home we had, our parenting ability, the stability of our home, our finances, our background and so on. Thus have we 3 kids now, 1 biological and two adopted girls, a good, loving and stable home, they all do well in school, are involved in all sorts of activities, and almost certainly grow up to be good productive members of American society.

So that's why its a terrible idea to just allow the bigotry on the part of an agency to play in role in home studies or adoption approvals. We are literally talking about the lives of kids here.
 
Cryptic said:
Texas wants to delegate components of that criteria to each individual adoption agency. Thus, they are no longer legally obligated to use the State's definition in its totality.

And the best way to protect that interest is for the state to withdraw unplaced children from an exclusionary agency after "X" amount of time- not dictate what criteria each agency must use.

I agree that a State can make this requirement. At the same time, a State can also be free to contract with any number of private groups with any number of internal rules- so long as the State is equally willing to entertain contracts from say Hindu groups and Christian ones.
Click to expand...

As I am certain you have conscience, I really don't think you understand this. Agencies routinely deal with foreign adoptions. In many of these countries the orphanages these kids are kept in are worse than a prison in the United States. With both of our girls we adopted from China, they were very malnourished, had intestinal parasites, were getting no education, were covered in insect bites, were getting no real treatment for their conditions, and housed with other kids as well as adults with severe brain injuries that would regularly beat and abuse the kids there - and China is one of the better foreign adoption systems. Best case scenario, an adoption will take 1 to 2 years. So after you start the process, they can be living in those kinds of conditions for another 1 to 2 years. So on top of that, you would potentially throw in an additional X amount of time when an agency refused a placement to an otherwise perfectly qualified family simply due to their religion or sexual orientation.

Seriously, think about that. What you are advocating in favor of is unconscionable.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Can a Catholic adoption agency for example, operating solely with funds from the church, not insist that adoptive parents be also Catholic?
Click to expand...

In the vast majority of states, no, they cannot. Nor should be able to. Kids are not property. A Catholic Adoption Agency or any other agency is a facilitator for the adoption. Their role is to conduct home studies and help facilitate the adoption. They don't own those kids, and thus they cannot use their agency like some kind of a farm team for Catholicism.

Furthermore, I don't know any Catholic agencies that have such requirements. They simply want to make the best placements for kids possible, they don't exclude families simply because they are Methodist because they know such an action is unconscionable as there are way more orphans worldwide than families looking to adopt, and thus when you start excluding families based upon religious beliefs or sexual orientation, you are excluding otherwise qualified families and thus condemning many orphans to never be adopted.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its not a question of the number of willing homes. Its the number of homes that get approved could decrease.

Example:

Child is listed with Agency A.

Agency A will not approve anyone that is not an Evangelical Christian to adopt. Family that is not religious applies to adopt child. Agency will not approve them because they are not religious. Moreover, because the agency believes the child should only be adopted by Evangelical Christians, they won't release the child to another agency, thus the child is most likely never adopted.

This is why it is a terrible idea to allow an agency to use religion or sexual orientation as criteria for approving adoptions.
Click to expand...

Again, can you point to any studies or demonstrate any facts which support your theory? A family which isn't acceptable for a given agency will find another agency. Not every agency will utilize religious tests for applicants and not every religious agency will refuse to release a child to another agency. This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. You have taken a position and are simply trying to invent the facts to support it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sorry, but that is simply a terrible idea. There are millions more orphans worldwide than there are families willing to adopt. It is extremely rare for an orphan to have more than one family to ever attempt to adopt them. Moreover, in many countries, orphans age out of the system fairly early on. For example, at 14, a kid in China is no longer eligible. So why on earth would you allow them to be listed with an agency that would screen out otherwise qualified families simply based upon their religious beliefs or sexual orientation, when that might be that kid's only chance at a family. Its flat out unconscionable.

We adopted special needs twice from China. We went through a Christian agency. We didn't choose that agency because they were a Christian agency, but rather because they were reputable agency that happened to be Christian and they were the ones that had the girls we were interested in adopting. My wife and I are not religious. So had they refused to allow us to adopt because we were not religious, then our girls would still be in China. One of our daughters has Cerebral Palsy. China is not like the USA. There is no safetynet there. They don't do a good job of taking care of those with disabilities. So had we not adopted her, chances are no one would have (way more orphans than families willing to adopt). Thus she would have spent her childhood in a ****hole "social welfare institute" in China where she would have received little to no education, no physical therapy, and malnourished. Once she became an adult, she could look forward to life on the streets as a beggar. Moreover, she would be branded with the surname of Yu, so that anyone in China would know she grew up in an orphanage without any education.

That didn't happen of course because our religion was not part of the criteria for our being approved to adopt, but rather it was what kind of a home we had, our parenting ability, the stability of our home, our finances, our background and so on. Thus have we 3 kids now, 1 biological and two adopted girls, a good, loving and stable home, they all do well in school, are involved in all sorts of activities, and almost certainly grow up to be good productive members of American society.

So that's why its a terrible idea to just allow the bigotry on the part of an agency to play in role in home studies or adoption approvals. We are literally talking about the lives of kids here.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying had they refused you because you aren't Christian, then your search to adopt would have ended?
 
ibelsd said:
So, you are saying had they refused you because you aren't Christian, then your search to adopt would have ended?
Click to expand...

I am saying I would not have been able to adopt our two daughters because we would then have had to attempt to get them to release them to another agency. At minimum it would have added a year to the process.
 
ibelsd said:
Again, can you point to any studies or demonstrate any facts which support your theory? A family which isn't acceptable for a given agency will find another agency. Not every agency will utilize religious tests for applicants and not every religious agency will refuse to release a child to another agency. This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. You have taken a position and are simply trying to invent the facts to support it.
Click to expand...

Then you depend upon that agency releasing the kid you are applying to adopt to another agency. Why are you going to such absurd lengths to defend bigots? You would think you would take the side of kids on this one. Your right to be a bigot does not extend so far as to impact the lives of others. I am not inventing facts, I am telling you the reality of it.

13 year old Chinese orphan has a heart defect that needs multiple surgeries to correct. Married lesbian couple applies to adopt this kid. They have the means to pay for his surgeries. Problem is the agency he is listed with refuses to approve their adoption. Kid ages out at age 14 before he can be transferred to a different agency.

Tough luck kid, your right a family is obviously not as important as the agency you got stuck with's right to be bigots. Sucks to be you.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sorry, but that is simply a terrible idea. There are millions more orphans worldwide than there are families willing to adopt.
Click to expand...
With far more orphans than willing families, is it really a good idea to start hindering or limiting the numbers of adoption service providers simply because they don't adhere to certain social views? Would it not be better to keep each and every provider open, regardless of their internal rules?

SouthernDemocrat said:
I
We adopted special needs twice from China. We went through a Christian agency. We didn't choose that agency because they were a Christian agency, but rather because they were reputable agency that happened to be Christian.
Click to expand...
This implies that some of these religious adoption services and even some of the exclusionary ones may be very good at placing children. Given the number of children to be placed, this is all the more reason to not hinder their operations or force them to close by imposing social ideologies on them.
SouthernDemocrat said:
So that's why its a terrible idea to just allow the bigotry on the part of an agency to play in role in home studies or adoption approvals. We are literally talking about the lives of kids here.
Click to expand...
Why not allow children to be placed simultaneously with non exclusionary and exclusionary agencies. Those agencies (regardless of their social views) that efficiently place the most hard to place children and therefore save the most lives are rewarded rather than forcing some otherwise successful agencies to close simply because of their social views?

SouthernDemocrat said:
For example, at 14, a kid in China is no longer eligible. So why on earth would you allow them to be listed with an agency that would screen out otherwise qualified families simply based upon their religious beliefs or sexual orientation, when that might be that kid's only chance at a family.
Click to expand...

I don't want to screen out anybody from adopting children. That is why I want to keep as many agencies open as possible. Imposing litmus tests on social views, then denying licenses to operate to those who "fail" the test is not a good way to accomplish this. The greater number of and diversity in adoption agencies is better for children- even if the agencies don't share my social views.

The State has a special interest in placing disabled children. As such, the State should offer incentives to non exclusionary agencies to accept and place these children. The same incentives can be offered to exclusionary agencies to hmm.... "relax" their normal exclusionary rules concerning hard to pave children. Mandatorily imposing social views on otherwise successful adoption agencies is probably not a good idea given the need for their services.

The State does not need to affirm of facilitate exclusionary agencies. Non exclusionary agencies can be encouraged by say, special imitations to state sponsored dinners where wealthy donors picked to share their social views are also invited.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sorry, but that is simply a terrible idea. There are millions more orphans worldwide than there are families willing to adopt.
Click to expand...
With far more orphans than willing families, is it really a good idea to start hindering or limiting the numbers of adoption service providers simply because they don't adhere to certain social views? Would it not be better to keep each and every provider open, regardless of their internal rules?


This implies that some of these religious adoption services and even some of the exclusionary ones may be very good at placing children. Given the number of children to be placed, this is all the more reason to not hinder their operations or force them to close by imposing social ideologies on them.

There needs to be a way that places the most children
Why not allow children to be placed simultaneously with non exclusionary and exclusionary agencies. Those agencies (regardless of their social views) that efficiently place the most children are rewarded?


I can agree that the State has a special interest in placing disabled children. As such, the State should offer incentives to non exclusionary agencies to accept and place these children. The same incentives can be offered to exclusionary agencies to hmm.... "relax" their normal exclusionary rules concerning hard to pave children. Mandatorily imposing social views on otherwise successful adoption agencies is probably not a good idea given the need for their services.

The State does not need to affirm of facilitate exclusionary agencies. Non exclusionary agencies can be encouraged by say, special imitations to state sponsored dinners where wealthy donors picked to share their social views are also invited.
 
Cryptic said:
Or...allow for various adoption agencies (Christian, secular, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic) to accept state contracts and operate by their own exclusionary internal rules. If and exlusionary agency cannot place the child in "X" number of months, the child is returned to the State and the State can assign the child to a non exclusionary agency.
Click to expand...

No way, this is what leads to abuse and it's not like a newborn is in a position to refuse. For instance, the idea that they would be able to force gay kids into torturous 'conversion therapy', that is exactly what you would enable. You would have a lot of blood on your hands

Not that the state is always the best arbiter of child welfare, but always better than religious fanatics
 
chromium said:
Not that the state is always the best arbiter of child welfare, but always better than religious fanatics
Click to expand...

Right- and thats why state run adoption and child welfare services are well known for their efficiency and wisdom.
 
Cryptic said:
With far more orphans than willing families, is it really a good idea to start hindering or limiting the numbers of adoption service providers simply because they don't adhere to certain social views? Would it not be better to keep each and every provider open, regardless of their internal rules?


This implies that some of these religious adoption services and even some of the exclusionary ones may be very good at placing children. Given the number of children to be placed, this is all the more reason to not hinder their operations or force them to close by imposing social ideologies on them.

Why not allow children to be placed simultaneously with non exclusionary and exclusionary agencies. Those agencies (regardless of their social views) that efficiently place the most hard to place children and therefore save the most lives are rewarded rather than forcing some otherwise successful agencies to close simply because of their social views?



I don't want to screen out anybody from adopting children. That is why I want to keep as many agencies open as possible. Imposing litmus tests on social views, then denying licenses to operate to those who "fail" the test is not a good way to accomplish this. The greater number of and diversity in adoption agencies is better for children- even if the agencies don't share my social views.

The State has a special interest in placing disabled children. As such, the State should offer incentives to non exclusionary agencies to accept and place these children. The same incentives can be offered to exclusionary agencies to hmm.... "relax" their normal exclusionary rules concerning hard to pave children. Mandatorily imposing social views on otherwise successful adoption agencies is probably not a good idea given the need for their services.

The State does not need to affirm of facilitate exclusionary agencies. Non exclusionary agencies can be encouraged by say, special imitations to state sponsored dinners where wealthy donors picked to share their social views are also invited.
Click to expand...

The status quo right now is agencies must adhere to state rules in almost all states. Yet there are tons of agencies. There are no shortage of agencies. So despite the fact most of them cannot discriminate, there are still tons of them.

Where this proposed law is a problem is with foreign adoptions. Domestic adoptions can go through any licensed agency. Foreign adoptions will have specific kids listed. This is because an agency may work with officials in a given province or country and no other agency has such contacts.

To me, and I think most people feel this way, the primary concern are the kids involved. Their needs should come before the biases of any agency. Frankly, if an agency would let a kid rot in a third world country simply because the parents that are apply to adopt them are not members of their preferred religion, then that agency is in the wrong business because they are letting their own biases or bigotry impact the children they are supposed to represent. So I don't know why we need to accommodate that kind of crap - particularly when they are getting taxpayer money. I am pretty sure in a few decades history books will not be looking to kindly on such agencies and organizations. Finally, these huge agencies are not just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, adoption is big business involving big money and they hire lobbyists just like any other big business.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
So you don't agree that foster care is an objectively worse outcome than adoption to a loving family. Ok. Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence that addresses the question asked.
 
Cryptic said:
With far more orphans than willing families, is it really a good idea to start hindering or limiting the numbers of adoption service providers simply because they don't adhere to certain social views? Would it not be better to keep each and every provider open, regardless of their internal rules?
Click to expand...

There seems to be something to this:

NEW YORK - Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.
Click to expand...

Illinois Catholic Charities close over adoption rule
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom