New Kansas law allows agencies to refuse LGBT adoptions

BOP

Well-Known Member
Naturally, the freak-out has begun.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/18/new-kansas-law-allows-agencies-to-refuse-lgbt-adoptions.html

TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer signed legislation Friday granting legal protections to faith-based adoption agencies that cite their religious beliefs for not placing children in LGBT homes, an action that quickly became an issue as he runs this year to keep his office.

The Republican governor signed the measure during a ceremony at a Christian boys' home outside Wichita, surrounded by supporters who view it as a religious-freedom measure. But the Democratic Party and one of Colyer's opponents in the GOP primary immediately criticized him as supporting discrimination.


How dare he not force individuals and entities to violate their belief systems!?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Kansas also just passed a law stating that cops can't have sex during traffic stops. Who knew, apparently it was legal up to now.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Naturally, the freak-out has begun.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/18/new-kansas-law-allows-agencies-to-refuse-lgbt-adoptions.html

TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer signed legislation Friday granting legal protections to faith-based adoption agencies that cite their religious beliefs for not placing children in LGBT homes, an action that quickly became an issue as he runs this year to keep his office.

The Republican governor signed the measure during a ceremony at a Christian boys' home outside Wichita, surrounded by supporters who view it as a religious-freedom measure. But the Democratic Party and one of Colyer's opponents in the GOP primary immediately criticized him as supporting discrimination.


How dare he not force individuals and entities to violate their belief systems!?

All States should have this law. Two Moms or two dads have no business adopting children and raising them in a homosexual lifestyle.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
All States should have this law. Two Moms or two dads have no business adopting children and raising them in a homosexual lifestyle.

IF the alternative is - NO parents - then I disagree.

Domestic adoption goes through two paths in this country -
Adoption of babies - where the demand is SO HIGH that most of them are finalized before the baby is even BORN -
and adoption of children either orphaned or otherwise taken from their parents - or in the foster system.

This second group VERY often grows into adulthood - without the benefit of an adoptive parent.
This breaks my heart. I wish I had more money so I could take care of more of them.

I know quite a number of gay persons and gay couples who - lifestyle notwithstanding - would make wonderful parents.
From experience, a number of gay men I've known actually are VERY good teachers and mentors to children and are vastly entertaining,
despite a ridiculous prejudice that they might be predatory - which statistics not only don't support but
show the opposite.

I do think it is best for a child to be raised by a mother and father - to learn and experience the benefits of both sexes,
and to receive the environment that both provide.

But being raised by ANYONE who loves you - single mom, dad, old, young, gay or straight - is definitely better
than not having anyone. And I say that because I've known at least a couple whose lives went that route,
including a foster brother whom we could not adopt and could not take with us when our family had to move away
- but who never found a family of his own.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
All States should have this law. Two Moms or two dads have no business adopting children and raising them in a homosexual lifestyle.

I actually disagree with you as far as eligibility to adopt is concerned, although I will concede that given some gay people's radical behavior, that does color it for the 80 - 90 percent of them.

I do agree with the religious freedom aspect of it. If a private, religious-based adoption agency chooses not to allow people with lifestyles that run counter to their own deeply-held beliefs, then they should have the right to refuse service. You know, baring any tax-payer dollars being involved.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
To me this is like the rescue groups that have a zillion silly restrictions on pet adoptions.

Are children really better off in some group home rather than having a loving family that happens to be gay? That is too ridiculous to think about and makes it clear that these "Christian" agencies don't care about children at all.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
To me this is like the rescue groups that have a zillion silly restrictions on pet adoptions.

Are children really better off in some group home rather than having a loving family that happens to be gay? That is too ridiculous to think about and makes it clear that these "Christian" agencies don't care about children at all.

Yeah these Christians just hate kids, That's why they take them in the first place. so they can hate on them.
 

black dog

Free America
One would think that if the good right was truly doing their job, there would be no kids available for the same sex couples to adopt.

If the christian right had it's way and ended abortion, How many children would be piling up for adoptions, that will never happen?
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Yeah these Christians just hate kids, That's why they take them in the first place. so they can hate on them.

. . .and demand that unwanted babies are forced to be born alive to be placed with people who love them.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
If the christian right had it's way and ended abortion, How many children would be piling up for adoptions, that will never happen?

Shall we give that idea a run for five or six years to see what happens?
 

black dog

Free America
Shall we give that idea a run for five or six years to see what happens?

We don't have to, just go back and look at how full the state, county and private orphanages were before 1973... Where did they all go in a few short years?
They closed up for lack of need, that's where they went.
I went to JH and played peewee sports with dozens of kids that lived just next door to North Bethesa JH school in The Baptist Home for Children on Greentree Rd right next to our school...
Every kid there would have traded their soul or his left nut for a family that would love them. But for most that I knew, it never happened, even in the land of money....
I know what happens, I'm old enough to have seen and remember it well..
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
We don't have to, just go back and look at how full the state, county and private orphanages were before 1973... Where did they all go in a few short years?
They closed up for lack of need, that's where they went.
I went to JH and played peewee sports with dozens of kids that lived just next door to North Bethesa JH school in The Baptist Home for Children on Greentree Rd right next to our school...
Every kid there would have traded their soul or his left nut for a family that would love them. But for most that I knew, it never happened, even in the land of money....
I know what happens, I'm old enough to have seen and remember it well..

Well it's true. No one can argue that killing infants has kept a lot of kids out of orphanages.
Certainly lowers the amount of children that can be adopted.
Of course the kids don't have to give their left nut to belong to a family.
The give their whole body to the suction machine.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
One would think that if the good right was truly doing their job, there would be no kids available for the same sex couples to adopt.

If the christian right had it's way and ended abortion, How many children would be piling up for adoptions, that will never happen?


That's not how it happens, mostly. In general, the demand for babies SO FAR exceeds the supply that birthmothers can usually choose who will take their baby.
And again, the demand is SO very high, that the adoption process - which can be involved - can be mostly completed BEFORE the child is even born.

There are a few areas where *babies* tend to "pile up" as you suggest - babies born with special needs, babies with severe medical problems
and depending on the geography - babies born to children of a different race. This can be a can of worms to begin with - some areas do not want or prefer
children to be adopted outside their race, and for whatever reason, black, Hispanic and native American children are not in as much demand
within their own ethnic or racial group. Some states also restrict or halt adoptions outside their state - so it's easy to see that a region where a large
portion of say, black or Hispanic people live - and are not adopting - you might have fewer adoptions.

BUT - the proportion of children needing homes is NOT predominantly children given up at birth. With the exceptions I gave - the big group
is children who are considerably older, who are removed from their homes for different reasons.

The *reason* that orphanages are almost entirely extinct is NOT because there's no demand - it's because we don't do it that way anymore.
And we're not the only country doing that - more and more nations are moving towards some kind of foster care system. It makes more sense,
it's more affordable even with stipends and support, and it provides a better home for kids than an orphanage.

My wife and I had to face this entire system when we chose to adopt, and from the heartbreaking stories we heard, we went the international adoption
route - which ALSO may be slowly going away, because more and more nations don't want their children taken abroad. UNICEF - in *their* great
"wisdom" - has tried to halt it altogether, because somehow they think it's worse for a child to lose their culture than grow up without a family.
Anyway, we knew at our age, we were less and less likely to be the choice for a birthmother, and we could not bear some of the stories of friends who
adopted domestically - only for them to be undone by a parent changing their mind. My parents had a couple they knew who twice had gone through
court and were on their way home - only for "Mom" to change her mind - and the court took her side.

I don't see any kind of connection between "numbers of abortions" and problems with adoption - while there are about three times as many
abortions as adoptions in this country, it's hard to guess how many could be adopted simply because many couples who adopt older children
- or who give up - might prefer to adopt a baby.

But the problem ISN'T "Christians who are against abortion but won't adopt" because right now, the bulk of kids available are NOT
babies given up for adoption, but children in the child welfare system. Older kids.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"Christians who are against abortion but won't adopt"

but that is the progressive meme in play these days ....


..... because more and more nations don't want their children taken abroad. UNICEF - in *their* great "wisdom" - has tried to halt it altogether, because somehow they think it's worse for a child to lose their culture than grow up without a family.



let me guess - Whitey adopting Africans / and a lesser extent Asians and raising them 'white'
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
let me guess - Whitey adopting Africans / and a lesser extent Asians and raising them 'white'


That's pretty much it although the only stories I've read deal with Africa.

I was surprised to see people from other nations besides the United States abroad - to adopt.

BTW - the Russian "ban" on adoption is only for Americans. They haven't halted adoptions from other nations.
What *REALLY* hurts the international adoptions is the stories of abuse that occur here - which truth be told,
are just the tiniest fraction of the total number. Without checking, I think the incidence of abuse to total
for Russia is something like 7 out of 5000 or so. When I go visit foreign sites or forums - or occasionally,
Facebook feeds on friend's sites abroad - I see that there is both outrage and support for international adoption -
on one Russian group, several made the comment that the incidence of abuse for adopted Russians is
still much better than Russian children in actual Russian HOMES.

You'd be amazed however at what people think Americans do with adopted children. I've seen SEVERAL
stories where they think we have them cut up for spare body parts; others where we keep them only
as house servants - essentially - slaves. Which is laughable on its face - if I wanted to do something that
awful to a child, I imagine there's at least a hundred ways cheaper and easier than going through adoption.

They just can't grasp why someone would adopt a child of a different culture or race - or even in the case
of Russia - they have a hard time grasping why anyone would adopt a child at all, since the stigma is that
orphans are sort of sub-human or at least, highly undesirable. Like people who are suspicious of another
political party - they automatically assume the reason MUST be bad.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
That's pretty much it although the only stories I've read deal with Africa.

:yay:


I was hedging my bets .... but yeah, I considered only Africa really giving all the whining that took place here, with Whites Adopting 'blacks' raising them White
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
:yay:


I was hedging my bets .... but yeah, I considered only Africa really giving all the whining that took place here, with Whites Adopting 'blacks' raising them White


In truth - we have tried - somewhat - to at least expose our kids to their native culture. And admittedly, that was something I feared I'd be bad at.
But I was on a forum where one of the dads was FROM Ethiopia - had married an Ethiopian woman - and had two children born HERE,
and raised in California. And he said, look, this IS my native country - and I know my culture - and my girls are *STILL* more interested in
American culture. If *I* am doing a bad job, who can do a good one? I don't think he ever knew how much better that made me feel.
Only my youngest has any interest in *her* culture.
 

black dog

Free America
That's not how it happens, mostly. In general, the demand for babies SO FAR exceeds the supply that birthmothers can usually choose who will take their baby.
And again, the demand is SO very high, that the adoption process - which can be involved - can be mostly completed BEFORE the child is even born.

There are a few areas where *babies* tend to "pile up" as you suggest - babies born with special needs, babies with severe medical problems
and depending on the geography - babies born to children of a different race. This can be a can of worms to begin with - some areas do not want or prefer
children to be adopted outside their race, and for whatever reason, black, Hispanic and native American children are not in as much demand
within their own ethnic or racial group. Some states also restrict or halt adoptions outside their state - so it's easy to see that a region where a large
portion of say, black or Hispanic people live - and are not adopting - you might have fewer adoptions.

BUT - the proportion of children needing homes is NOT predominantly children given up at birth. With the exceptions I gave - the big group
is children who are considerably older, who are removed from their homes for different reasons.

The *reason* that orphanages are almost entirely extinct is NOT because there's no demand - it's because we don't do it that way anymore.
And we're not the only country doing that - more and more nations are moving towards some kind of foster care system. It makes more sense,
it's more affordable even with stipends and support, and it provides a better home for kids than an orphanage.

My wife and I had to face this entire system when we chose to adopt, and from the heartbreaking stories we heard, we went the international adoption
route - which ALSO may be slowly going away, because more and more nations don't want their children taken abroad. UNICEF - in *their* great
"wisdom" - has tried to halt it altogether, because somehow they think it's worse for a child to lose their culture than grow up without a family.
Anyway, we knew at our age, we were less and less likely to be the choice for a birthmother, and we could not bear some of the stories of friends who
adopted domestically - only for them to be undone by a parent changing their mind. My parents had a couple they knew who twice had gone through
court and were on their way home - only for "Mom" to change her mind - and the court took her side.

I don't see any kind of connection between "numbers of abortions" and problems with adoption - while there are about three times as many
abortions as adoptions in this country, it's hard to guess how many could be adopted simply because many couples who adopt older children
- or who give up - might prefer to adopt a baby.

But the problem ISN'T "Christians who are against abortion but won't adopt" because right now, the bulk of kids available are NOT
babies given up for adoption, but children in the child welfare system. Older kids.


I see lots of connections from what you call available children and abortions, maybe I see it because I remember before 1973. I've seen the before, I went to school with the before and I became and still have friends that were part of the system before...

Are you old enough Sam to remember all the red brick and stone building throughout every county and state that were needed for these infants, children and young adults?

The county's and states should start a adopt a kid program and move past this mindset that someone needs to adapt a infant program...
I'll never understand why folks have this incessant need for a infant, when so many toddlers / kids are available that can be taught to use a microwave and feed themselves in days vers years...

And j will say that I know two couples that adopted in the past few years and they spent no more that a 1 1/2 years after paperwork was done each waiting for a white infant..

All one has to do that thinks no abortion laws will not create a huge surplus of infants in the orphanages or tossed in dumpsters needs to look no farther than country's that have banned abortion, say Venezuela for starters.

And more food for thought, orphanages are still there, just the names have changed in some cases. Are foster homes popular.. absolutely.. but also In their place are modern boarding schools, residential treatment centers and group homes.
My bestie donates time to The Youth Opportunity Center in Muncie, it's a orphanage that has kids in it that did nothing wrong to live their besides having worthless or non existent parents to violent offenders that live behind chain link and concertina wire.
They are still there, you just gotta look harder..
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Are you old enough Sam to remember all the red brick and stone building throughout every county and state that were needed for these infants, children and young adults?

Used to be one about a mile from my house as a kid. Yes, dammit I am that old, thanks for the reminder.

The county's and states should start a adopt a kid program and move past this mindset that someone needs to adapt a infant program...

Maryland HAD such a program and may yet still - they've been promoting foster care a lot these past 7 or 8 years.

I'll never understand why folks have this incessant need for a infant, when so many toddlers / kids are available that can be taught to use a microwave and feed themselves in days vers years...

Only one of mine was a "baby" - he was two. I miss those years. I love my other two, but those were special, if not demanding times.

TODDLERS are almost non-existent for adoption. I know. We looked. Trust me, we did.
Babies or kids 7 and up, usually adolescents.
We went through it all for about nine years.
And babies for older couples are more difficult.

And j will say that I know two couples that adopted in the past few years and they spent no more that a 1 1/2 years after paperwork was done each waiting for a white infant..

So do we. Were they in their forties? I don't mean to be argumentative - but we lived it. And because of it, about half of our friends are parents
of adopted children. And most of my immediate family has, too, including my father's parents (father was adopted - from an orphanage - at 3 years), brother
and cousins. I'll never get why people will say things like oh I wish we could have gone the EASY route and just adopted. Trust me, we would have both
preferred the pain of childbirth to the paperwork, phone calls, government bureaucracy, and endless drains on finances and time.

All one has to do that thinks no abortion laws will not create a huge surplus of infants in the orphanages or tossed in dumpsters needs to look no farther than country's that have banned abortion, say Venezuela for starters.

I don't think you have to ban abortion - but you might have programs such as Planned Parenthood actually *encourage* birth instead of abortion.
The nations with the HIGHEST rate of abortion have very large numbers of orphans as well, such as Eastern Europe and the Caribbean.


And more food for thought, orphanages are still there, just the names have changed in some cases.

You are correct - but they have nearly vanished.

Are foster homes popular.. absolutely.. but also In their place are modern boarding schools, residential treatment centers and group homes.

I am not sure how those fit in. I am not familiar personally with modern boarding schools, but the last two - my son has
a severe learning disability, and when I die, he will need one of those. As will most of my friends who have kids like him.
I don't see the connection.

My bestie donates time to The Youth Opportunity Center in Muncie, it's a orphanage that has kids in it that did nothing wrong to live their besides having worthless or non existent parents to violent offenders that live behind chain link and concertina wire.
They are still there, you just gotta look harder..

Yup. Don't disagree with you there. Most kids you will see available for adoption - such as those you see on the evening news - they've been removed from homes, abandoned or neglected or abused by their parents. And they are older. They were not placed there at birth. Kids like these comprise almost two thirds of all kids in this country available for adoption.
MY bestie - when he was looking - was offered the chance to raise two children who witnessed the murder of their mother at the hands of their father.
THAT one didn't go through.

I'd adopt more if I could afford it. I know a handful of gay people - the reason this subject was started - who would adopt if it weren't for laws - and societal disapproval.
I just don't see this link between abortion and adoption - in this country, there are not enough babies to go around, and truthfully - some of the kids who have been through trauma -
I am not sure I am equipped to raise many of them. Loving them ain't enough. Take my word- my oldest has a disability where many others with it turn out seriously violent.
I know a couple in Florida who adopted a sibling group who were horribly sexually abused most of their lives - and it's been painful, to put it mildly.
 
Top