Lesbian Couples Sues Government For Inability To Foster Refugee Child

[Seymour Flops]

There is something rotten in Texas. There are Children in need of homes and these women are ready, willing and able to prove one, but are not being allowed to do so. They wanted care for an older children who are hard to place. In addition, of the women is an attorney with an expertise in immigration rights. .

So, they were looking for a fight, a way to use children as pawns.

Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm

Wait, what? You want to start a discussion about whether homosexuals should be chosen as foster parents, but the first ground rule is no talk about homosexuality, or parenting?

Fine, let’s talk about the constitution. Under that document, Catholics are allowed to have the religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that openly living the homosexual lifestyle sets an example of disregarding the laws of God.

Under the 1st and the tenth Amendment, Catholics are allowed to do works of charity in accordance with their faith, including providing foster care and adoption services to children in need.

Under modern theories of good government, and the constitutions provision that congress control spending, Congress is allowed to provide funds to non-governmental agencies that it judges provide a benefit that furthers the general welfare. One example might be providing foster care and adoption services.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply, that religious groups cannot be non-governmental agencies who further the general welfare. Nor does it say that in order to qualify as such a non-government agency, a religious group must adhere to the latest woke dogma regarding homosexuality, transsexuality, inter-species sexuality, nor the BDSM lifestyle. It need not renounce all their beliefs in order to be adjudged “tolerant” enough to be allowed to help widows And orphans.

There are plenty of congregations run by transgender lesbian polygamist bishops and whatnot, who also receive government funding and plenty of taxpayers who would not want their money going to them. As long as they are doing good work, especially helping children, I’m fine with that.

Either get government out of the charity business, go back to government run poor houses so no one is ever offended by this group or that getting funding, or accept that you just can’t get your own way in every particular, all the time.

I recommend the latter, as the most practical and most conducive to growing the heck up.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Your post screams insecurity. To say that someone doesn't have a moral objection independent of religion is to be a FOOL
and legally a fool. SCOTUS ruled on that in the atheist conscientious objector case. The poor refugee girl has had enough suffering without cursing her with dyke fake parents--- and that is what everybody will think and many will say. Then --- because this usually happens --- the lesbians will use the girl as a sob when In fact they are ruining her life.

Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Spend more time watching TV
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

a CURSE on perverts that make kids their explosive sniffing dogs to shame people who KNOW that parents are a MAN and a WOMAN.

It is an abomination that people like Buttigieg are committing and infuriates people who love children
View attachment 887005

A lot of assertions there..do you happen to have the links to the data that backs them up? I'm finding just the opposite of your assertions..in the reputable realm anyway. Odd though..that I find a lot of your factoids applicable to single-parent households--I wonder if you, or whoever you're reading, are conflating those statistics.

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief - PMC

Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary​

To date, the consensus in the social science literature is clear: in the United States, children living with two same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, including many drawing on nationally representative data, form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as well as children raised in different-sex parent families across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

LGBTQ Parenting in the US

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Spend more time watching TV
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

Codswallop! I notice that you did not bother to provide documentation. The science says differently:

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents http://www.edgemedianetwork.com/news/family/147523/new_study:_no_difference_between_gay_&_straight_adoptive_parents
by David  Perry
Contributor
Monday Jul 29, 2013
A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.

"Parents’ sexual orientation is not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.
The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children.

For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).


Here is more:

In a project launched last month, a team at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.


Even the notion that some try to put forth, that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union.[5][6][87][92] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[93] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[94]
And more:
The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/05/2106751/same-sex-parenting-study/

 

[Libby von H]

A lot of assertions there..do you happen to have the links to the data that backs them up? I'm finding just the opposite of your assertions..in the reputable realm anyway. Odd though..that I find a lot of your factoids applicable to single-parent households--I wonder if you, or whoever you're reading, are conflating those statistics.

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief - PMC

Recent legal cases before the Supreme Court of the United States were challenging federal definitions of marriage created by the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s voter approved Proposition 8 which limited marriage to different-sex couples ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Summary​

To date, the consensus in the social science literature is clear: in the United States, children living with two same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, including many drawing on nationally representative data, form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as well as children raised in different-sex parent families across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.

LGBTQ Parenting in the US

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

The illogicality and silliness of your reply --- I hope it gets a wide hearing. You are showing in your own person just what I was talking about.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your post screams insecurity.

Your post screams of bigotry and ignorance. And who the hell are you to say that I am insecure. What is it that you think that I am insecure about? You do no know me!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The illogicality and silliness of your reply --- I hope it gets a wide hearing. You are showing in your own person just what I was talking about.

Uh-huh. I note, with amusement, that you still have provided no links to back up your assertions.

 

[Libby von H]

Your post screams of bigotry and ignorance. And who the hell are you to say that I am insecure. What is it that you think that I am insecure about? You do no know me!

I know you down to the atoms from hearing the same crap for decades from people just like you.
You exhibit 2 common things even in your reply
1) you make no rebuttal , you just whine
2)and you switch from the topic to me.

YEAH, I know you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I know you down to the atoms from hearing the same crap for decades from people just like you.
You exhibit 2 common things even in your reply
1) you make no rebuttal , you just whine
2)and you switch from the topic to me.

YEAH, I know you

No rebuttle? Read post 143 if you dare You made it about you with your inane nonsensical assumptions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The poor refugee girl has had enough suffering without cursing her with dyke fake parents--- and that is what everybody will think and many will say. Then --- because this usually happens --- the lesbians will use the girl as a sob when In fact they are ruining her life.

Go back and read the OP. The entire OP this time Read it slowly. Get help with comprehension if need be. Try to learn something about the foster care and adoption system . Your histrionics do nor become you nor does your bigotry born of fear and ignorance. It is people like you who ruin kids lives

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, they were looking for a fight, a way to use children as pawns.

Wait, what? You want to start a discussion about whether homosexuals should be chosen as foster parents, but the first ground rule is no talk about homosexuality, or parenting?

Fine, let’s talk about the constitution. Under that document, Catholics are allowed to have the religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that openly living the homosexual lifestyle sets an example of disregarding the laws of God.

Under the 1st and the tenth Amendment, Catholics are allowed to do works of charity in accordance with their faith, including providing foster care and adoption services to children in need.

Under modern theories of good government, and the constitutions provision that congress control spending, Congress is allowed to provide funds to non-governmental agencies that it judges provide a benefit that furthers the general welfare. One example might be providing foster care and adoption services.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply, that religious groups cannot be non-governmental agencies who further the general welfare. Nor does it say that in order to qualify as such a non-government agency, a religious group must adhere to the latest woke dogma regarding homosexuality, transsexuality, inter-species sexuality, nor the BDSM lifestyle. It need not renounce all their beliefs in order to be adjudged “tolerant” enough to be allowed to help widows And orphans.

There are plenty of congregations run by transgender lesbian polygamist bishops and whatnot, who also receive government funding and plenty of taxpayers who would not want their money going to them. As long as they are doing good work, especially helping children, I’m fine with that.

Either get government out of the charity business, go back to government run poor houses so no one is ever offended by this group or that getting funding, or accept that you just can’t get your own way in every particular, all the time.

I recommend the latter, as the most practical and most conducive to growing the heck up.

That’s right. The issue of the effects and out comes of parenting by same sex couples has been beaten to death over many years, in the courts, in professional journals and right here on the USMB. There are countless studies from around the world that supports the efficacy of same sex parents. Yes there are also dozens of studies that claim to “prove “ that sex parenting is harmful in various ways. I have looked at many of them and they are all deeply flawed . They use thinly vailed slights of hand to reach the predetermined conclusions that the want, such as using an experimental group consisting of children who have same sex parents but suffered some sort of trauma such as divorce or death of a birth parent or being a product of the foster care system. Then then use a control group of kids who were birthed in a stable opposite sex parent family, compare developmental, educational and behavioral data and say...”there you see.....same sex bad” That is exactly what our newest resident bigot, Libby von H did, if she gave it any thought at all. It always goes the same way That is why such discussions are useless and quite frankly I find then boring . On the other hand, this thread deals with a relativly new , untested and more interesting issue

Fine, let’s talk about the constitution. Under that document, Catholics are allowed to have the religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that openly living the homosexual lifestyle sets an example of disregarding the laws of God.

Agreed , so far

Under the 1st and the tenth Amendment, Catholics are allowed to do works of charity in accordance with their faith, including providing foster care and adoption services to children in need.

Yes, ok

Under modern theories of good government, and the constitutions provision that congress control spending, Congress is allowed to provide funds to non-governmental agencies that it judges provide a benefit that furthers the general welfare. One example might be providing foster care and adoption services.

Still agreeing but beginning to wonder when you will grt o the taxpayer/ government sanctioned discrimination part

Nowhere in the constitution does it say or imply, that religious groups cannot be non-governmental agencies who further the general welfare. Nor does it say that in order to qualify as such a non-government agency, a religious group must adhere to the latest woke dogma regarding homosexuality, transsexuality, inter-species sexuality, nor the BDSM lifestyle. It need not renounce all their beliefs in order to be adjudged “tolerant” enough to be allowed to help widows And orphans.

Oh yes, now you are getting to the meat of the matter. The issue is not what the constitution does not say. The issue is what is does say, specifically in the first amendment. I am hard pressed to see how the government funded and sanctioned action of Catholic Charities does not constitute government favoritism for a religion. My onlly problem with the case is that the plaintiffs are suing the government I would prefer that the government was suing Catholic Charities .

Organizations like Catholic Charities need to decide whether their primary goal to actually help children and families , or to advance a religious agenda. In theory they should be able to do both, but here, bigotry and stupidity gets in the way. Mirror the holy family? How many families actually mirror the holy family. Answer: Not enought to accommodate all children in need of a family

They may also want to consider the fact that helping people of all kinds is consistent with a religious agenda. Also worthy of consideration is that fact that their views on homosexuality are not universally held, even among Catholics, the concept of charity is. I must wonder if the Pope- Who recently gave permission to bless same sex unions- would agree with Catholic Charities position. I also wonder what the outcome of the legal case was since this is from few years ago

There are plenty of congregations run by transgender lesbian polygamist bishops and whatnot, who also receive government funding and plenty of taxpayers who would not want their money going to them. As long as they are doing good work, especially helping children, I’m fine with that.

I am not sure what you are talking about here , especially the polygamist bishops part but it does not sound like there congregations , if they exist in any numbers , are discriminating against anyone

Either get government out of the charity business, go back to government run poor houses so no one is ever offended by this group or that getting funding, or accept that you just can’t get your own way in every particular, all the time.


I recommend the latter, as the most practical and most conducive to growing the heck up.

There you go! Throw the baby out with the bath water and let the suffering begin No one expects to always get their own way, but everyone has the right to expect to be treated fairly and equally. And children have the right to not be used as pawns by bigots in the fight against gay rights as they have been since the early days of the marriage equality debates

 

[Seymour Flops]

That’s right. The issue of the effects and out comes of parenting by same sex couples has been beaten to death over many years, in the courts, in professional journals and right here on the USMB. There are countless studies from around the world that supports the efficacy of same sex parents. Yes there are also dozens of studies that claim to “prove “ that sex parenting is harmful in various ways. I have looked at many of them and they are all deeply flawed . They use thinly vailed slights of hand to reach the predetermined conclusions that the want, such as using an experimental group consisting of children who have same sex parents but suffered some sort of trauma such as divorce or death of a birth parent or being a product of the foster care system. Then then use a control group of kids who were birthed in a stable opposite sex parent family, compare developmental, educational and behavioral data and say...”there you see.....same sex bad” That is exactly what our newest resident bigot, Libby von H did, if she gave it any thought at all. It always goes the same way That is why such discussions are useless and quite frankly I find then boring .

So, you just wrote about four paragraphs or what would have been paragraphs if you had divided them into paragraphs about a topic that you said we were not allowed to discuss. So, am I allowed to respond to that or would that break the ground rules?

Actually, just kidding. Only pointing out the hypocrisy. I don’t think it’s a big deal if a gay couple adopts a kid. Obviously, and according to the science, it’s better for any child to have a parent of each gender. Anyone disputing that is just playing politics. But, two same-sex parents are certainly better than no parents at all so it’s a midpoint.

On the other hand, this thread deals with a relativly new , untested and more interesting issue

Not really. As long as the government is either running orphanages and handing kids out to foster homes or assisting those who do, exactly where those children go will always be an issue

Oh yes, now you are getting to the meat of the matter. The issue is not what the constitution does not say. The issue is what is does say, specifically in the first amendment. I am hard pressed to see how the government funded and sanctioned action of Catholic Charities does not constitute government favoritism for a religion.

It would be “favoritism“ to a group that is actively helping children. Not because of what religion they are. What you want is dis-favoritism or to put it more clearly what you want is discrimination against people whose religious beliefs do not support with your political beliefs.

My onlly problem with the case is that the plaintiffs are suing the government I would prefer that the government was suing Catholic Charities .

Why in the world would they suit Catholic charities? The government made the money available and Catholic charities excepted the funds. When government makes money available, it is letting everyone know that it favors whatever they are funding.

Organizations like Catholic Charities need to decide whether their primary goal to actually help children and families , or to advance a religious agenda.

No, they actually don’t. There is nothing in the constitution that says freedom of religion means your religion has to do all one thing, or that it has to select one primary goal. That your idea of how people with whom you disagree should behave. Can see how that would be a big advantage for you to be able to dictate the actions of those you oppose.

In theory they should be able to do both, but here, bigotry and stupidity gets in the way. Mirror the holy family? How many families actually mirror the holy family. Answer: Not enought to accommodate all children in need of a family

And this is where your own bias comes in, and basically render intelligent conversation impossible. You are asking me to accept your prejudice against the Catholic faith as factual, and not simply your own emotions and opinions.

It is very strange when progressives, who are nearly always hostile to religion, start explaining to religious people what their religion means.

What you may not be aware of is that many progressives have decided that Christianity is not the evil that you think it is. Many of them believe that Jesus loves transgenders as much as he loves anyone else. In that of course, I completely agree with them.


Does not mean that I think children should be poisoned with opposite sex, hormones, and surgical used to satisfy an adult idea of what it takes to be a real girl or a real boy. it is observed to say that we would protect a child’s rights by mutilating that child.

There you go! Throw the baby out with the bath water and let the suffering begin No one expects to always get their own way, but everyone has the right to expect to be treated fairly and equally. And children have the right to not be used as pawns by bigots in the fight against gay rights as they have been since the early days of the marriage equality debates

How in the world does a Catholic charity finding a loving home for a child treat them as a pawn? What you want is for all children to be pawns in your game of further the progressive agenda.

I have to say, that, if you are concerned about children, being sent to foster homes that don’t suit you, you may consider where your own beloved federal government is sending illegal alien children. We found out from their congressional testimony that there is no vetting of so-called sponsors, and absolutely no follow up beyond one phone call. That’s right, that’s exactly what they stated: they try to call once, and if they don’t answer, they assume the child is lost, and wash their hands of that child.

It seems that that would be a more important issue for you to tackle, than the possibility that a politically incorrect religion might be allowed to promote foster care.

 

[Coyote]

Your post screams insecurity. To say that someone doesn't have a moral objection independent of religion is to be a FOOL
and legally a fool. SCOTUS ruled on that in the atheist conscientious objector case. The poor refugee girl has had enough suffering without cursing her with dyke fake parents--- and that is what everybody will think and many will say. Then --- because this usually happens --- the lesbians will use the girl as a sob when In fact they are ruining her life.

Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…

• Experience poor educational attainment
• Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
• Have impulsive behavior
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
• Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
• Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
• Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
• Be unemployed or part-time employed as young adults
• As adults, currently be on public assistance or sometime in their childhood
• Live in homes with lower income levels
• Drink with intention of getting drunk
• To smoke tobacco and marijuana
• Spend more time watching TV
• Have frequency of arrests
• Have pled guilty to minor legal offense

a CURSE on perverts that make kids their explosive sniffing dogs to shame people who KNOW that parents are a MAN and a WOMAN.

It is an abomination that people like Buttigieg are committing and infuriates people who love children
View attachment 887005

Do you have a source to support those claims?

 

[Libby von H]

No rebuttle? Read post 143 if you dare You made it about you with your inane nonsensical assumptions

REBUTTAL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, you just wrote about four paragraphs or what would have been paragraphs if you had divided them into paragraphs about a topic that you said we were not allowed to discuss. So, am I allowed to respond to that or would that break the ground rules?

Actually, just kidding. Only pointing out the hypocrisy. I don’t think it’s a big deal if a gay couple adopts a kid. Obviously, and according to the science, it’s better for any child to have a parent of each gender. Anyone disputing that is just playing politics. But, two same-sex parents are certainly better than no parents at all so it’s a midpoint.

Post one single piece of scientific evidence that shows that kids do better with opposite sex parents and I will dstroy it. I have seen and head it all

 

[Libby von H]

Post one single piece of scientific evidence that shows that kids do better with opposite sex parents and I will dstroy it. I have seen and head it all

Of course your point defeats itself. Show one shred of evidence that shows kids do worse with criminal parents.THAT would prove nothing. there is what parents are in regard to their familiy and what they are in regard to society,.
And wrong also from the other side, how can it be that any situation is better than no parents. Many kids end up with a mother or father dying. Yet you say a blanket :ALL kids,ANY parents. So dumb it is infuriating.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not really. As long as the government is either running orphanages and handing kids out to foster homes or assisting those who do, exactly where those children go will always be an issue

Yes but this type of litigation is new . I still don't know what the outcome was. Do you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course your point defeats itself. Show one shred of evidence that shows kids do worse with criminal parents.THAT would prove nothing. there is what parents are in regard to their familiy and what they are in regard to society,.
And wrong also from the other side, how can it be that any situation is better than no parents. Many kids end up with a mother or father dying. Yet you say a blanket :ALL kids,ANY parents. So dumb it is infuriating.

More incoherent blatherskite You need to work on your writing and organizational skills. I have better things to do than try to decipher this claptrap

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It would be “favoritism“ to a group that is actively helping children. Not because of what religion they are. What you want is dis-favoritism or to put it more clearly what you want is discrimination against people whose religious beliefs do not support with your political beliefs.

That is kind of like saying that it would be discrimination against Woolworths if they were sued for not allowing blacks to sit at their lunch counter in violation of the stores beliefs about race.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why in the world would they suit Catholic charities? The government made the money available and Catholic charities excepted the funds. When government makes money available, it is letting everyone know that it favors whatever they are funding.

Well then they should not have made it available

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, they actually don’t. There is nothing in the constitution that says freedom of religion means your religion has to do all one thing, or that it has to select one primary goal. That your idea of how people with whom you disagree should behave. Can see how that would be a big advantage for you to be able to dictate the actions of those you oppose.

It is discrimination. Plain and simple. It is also a violation of the first amendment that dictates that the government may not act in a way that imposes relion ofn anyone, as was done to those women