Women for Trump

[brian ross]

I was engaging in conversation, Black Orchid, nothing more. Don't know about you but when I discuss things with other people, I tend to refer to them by their name.

No soup, no roll and no chair for you!

[Black Orchid]

OK fair enough. It's hard to tell with you sometimes though. So perhaps we agree.

Neither should be barred and I don't believe either one is more likely to display their prejudices any more than the other.

[Nicole]

OK fair enough. It's hard to tell with you sometimes though. So perhaps we agree.

Neither should be barred and I don't believe either one is more likely to display their prejudices any more than the other.

Exactly. Trump is right. Again.

[Hebe]

So it’s OK to discriminate against LGBT people, but not “religious” people, and Trump is both “caring” and “right again”?

Bullshit. He isn’t caring at all. He’s buying votes.

[Hebe]

[Nicole]

Trump is not saying LGTB can’t foster. He’s adding to the pool of caring homes that can foster by allowing faith based to foster as well. If America is anything like Australia, loving homes are desperately needed to get kids out of residential and commercial care (both of which use rotating carers).

You would discriminate Hebe, as Obama did, by allowing LGTB to foster, whilst disallowing faith based groups. The bigot in the room is easy to spot.

[Black Orchid]

Hebe this is about supplying more placements for children, not less. I really don't understand your stance other than "orange man bad".

I have tried to explain my understanding of the bill perhaps you could take a few minutes and explain to us why you see allowing more placements into the system to be so detrimental to the children in question and why you think it is discriminating against gays when the gays are not being taken out of the system at large.

You claimed ...

It will be bad for the over 440,000 children in government care in need of loving families

Could you please expand on this too? A little over 400,000 is the total number of children in care in the US. How can allowing more placements into the system be bad for every child in care or needing care?

Sorry I am just not understanding the rationale behind your outrage.

[Hebe]

Did you actually READ the article?


“Last week, while the Department of Health and Human Services was rolling-back Obama administration protections for transgender people, it was reported that HHS is also preparing to issue a nationwide rule that would allow for discrimination against same-sex couples seeking to open their hearts and homes to children in the foster care system”

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SAME-SEX COUPLES. Is that so hard to understand?

[Black Orchid]

Have you read anything other than that one article or are you so led by outrage that you can't delve further? Instead of being rude you might care to educate yourself about the situation. I have tried to politely explain it to you!

Catholic Social Services (CSS), which operates a faith-based foster care agency in Philadelphia, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in to protect the agency’s conscience rights pertaining to the nature of marriage. After decades of cooperation with the “City of Brotherly Love” in the placement of children in foster homes, CSS has been ordered by the city to work with same-sex couples, or cease its foster care work.

The history of discrimination against faith-based foster care and adoption agencies because of the proliferation of state and local sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws is well known. Boston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Buffalo, Syracuse, and the states of Illinois and Michigan are among the places where such agencies have been driven out of business by governments bent on outlawing religious beliefs regarding the nature of marriage.

Now let’s examine why foster-care agencies should be allowed to be run in accordance with their faith.

Foster care and adoption policy should be driven by the needs of children, not the desires of adults. Current statistics tell the story: There are approximately 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S.; over 100,000 of them are waiting to be adopted; and roughly 20,000 youths will age out of the foster care system every year. The need for both willing parents and capable agencies is great.

Forcing faith-based agencies out of business means there are fewer agencies working to place children in forever homes. And that means that fewer children will find their forever homes. That’s not in anyone’s best interest.

Same-sex couples are not prevented from fostering or adopting children by the presence of faith-based agencies. Same-sex parents are four times more likely than different-sex parents to be raising an adopted child. Faith-based adoption agencies account for a minority of the total number of agencies working in this field, and many, such as CSS in Philadelphia, are willing to refer same-sex couples to one of the many other agencies in the area who will work with them.

Faith-based agencies meet a need that other agencies do not. Many parents seeking to foster or adopt a child operate from a biblical worldview and want to partner with an agency that also holds comparable beliefs. Many birth mothers who need to give their child up for adoption also want to partner with a faith-based agency to find adoptive parents with similar religious beliefs.

Protecting the freedom of faith-based organizations to work in accordance with their values takes nothing away from anyone. However, when governments drive out faith-based agencies, only needy children are hurt. Fewer providers means fewer placements.

https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.c ... -for-help/

I might draw your attention to the fact that "faith based agencies account for a minority of the total number of agencies working in this field" and many of those, under Obama's swan song last 15 mins in office, were forced out of the field because of their faith. This is also discrimination you understand?

The majority of agencies take SSM couples onto their books. Do you also see where "Same-sex parents are four times more likely than different-sex parents to be raising an adopted child." I consider that discrimination against heterosexual couples.

Faith based agencies can provide things other agencies cannot and remember that the faith based agencies are only a small proportion of child placement agencies yet you wish to exclude them ...

1.Faith-based agencies (FBAs) are able to tap into faith communities and attract new populations of foster and adoptive parents.

2.In some instances, private providers may supplement the money they receive from the state to care for foster children.

3.Some FBAs also excel at placing children in difficult situations vis-à-vis adoptive homes: older children, sibling groups, and children with special needs.

https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/ ... ld-welfare

No-one is taking anything away from SSM couples as they have the MAJORITY of agencies to go to. Many faith based agencies are even happy to refer same sex couples to an agency who will accommodate them.

Bottom line ... this should be about the children and not about shutting out a few faith based agencies who do good work and are excluded because of irrational minority outrage ... and it is irrational.

[The4thEstate]

Did you actually READ the article?


“Last week, while the Department of Health and Human Services was rolling-back Obama administration protections for transgender people, it was reported that HHS is also preparing to issue a nationwide rule that would allow for discrimination against same-sex couples seeking to open their hearts and homes to children in the foster care system”

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SAME-SEX COUPLES. Is that so hard to understand?

Let's take a step back here. The article was written by the ACLU, a hardcore leftist group. They're not going out of their way to report the story objectively -- they raise money by getting people like you worked up enough to send them donations.

So it's always useful to consider the other side of the argument, which is this: Some religions, and not only Christian, have beliefs that prohibit them from arranging adoptions for same-sex couples. Many of those same religions also operate foster care and adoption agencies.

The Obama administration demanded that these faith-based agencies either violate the tenets of their own religions or lose federal funding. As Nicole noted: "Trump is not saying LGTB can’t foster. He’s adding to the pool of caring homes that can foster by allowing faith based to foster as well."

That's correct -- faith-based agencies can always refer same-sex couples to foster care and adoption agencies that have no religious objections to working with them. It's not as if Trump is shutting down every agency that places kids with LGBTQ+ couples or is prohibiting every American adoption agency from working with same-sex couples.

And speaking of trying to win votes ... the Obama administration policy might have pleased the LGBTQ+ lobby with its policy, but how does it help more children get fostered and adopted when you reduce the resources of faith-based agencies?

* * * * * * * *

As for the Trump administration's transgender policy, here's the other side of the argument, as reported by NPR: "Critics say the change would allow shelter operators to turn transgender individuals away because of their gender identity, or to require transgender men to use women-only shelters and vice versa." But why should a women's homeless shelter be required to take in a biological male just because he claims to identify as a woman?

And there are much deeper issues at stake. As this Wall Street Journal column notes, a bill backed by U.S. Democrats ("The Equality Act") would require even battered women's shelters -- filled with women who are escaping abuse from brutal men -- to take in biological males who "identify" as females.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-transg ... 1553640683

"The Equality Act sacrifices female safety in restrooms, locker rooms and even domestic-violence shelters ... Any biological males who self-identify as females would, under the Equality Act, be legally entitled to enter women’s restrooms, locker rooms and protective facilities such as battered-women’s shelters. This would put women and girls at immediate physical risk."

Do you not see the potential consequences for abused women if the U.S. government were to embrace such a radical redefinition of gender? Or are you OK with victimized women being collateral damage in the war on traditional gender classifications?