Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
90 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: South Dakota makes it easier to discriminate against gay couples rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New South Dakota Law Protects Religious Child-Placement Agencies

ACLU reports that on March 10, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB 149 (full text) into law. The new law protects adoption and foster care agencies that act in accordance with religious or moral beliefs in placing children, providing in part:
No child-placement agency may be required to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with any sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the child-placement agency.
It also explicitly bars any adverse action by the state against a child placement agency that acts in accordance with its religious or moral principles, except it does not authorize discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. One of the primary effects of the legislation is to allow agencies to refuse to permit adoptions by same-sex couples.

Dakota Free Press reported on February hearings on the bill in which an ACLU witness pointed out that the bill would allow agencies to exclude adoptions or foster care placements by
not only same-sex couples, but also people who have a different religion [from] the agency, single parents, interfaith couples… families that don’t attend church weekly, service members or gun owners… based on the agency’s moral conviction regarding pacifism, all while children in need of homes languish in foster care and await permanent families. This bill even authorizes agencies to deny a child placement with a close relative and instead place that child with strangers if that relative is of the wrong religion….

https://www.aclu.org/news/south-dakota-becomes-first-state-y...

http://dakotafreepress.com/2017/02/20/aclus-skarin-fights-sb...

a giant step backward for gay couples looking to adopt in South Dakota.Thanks GOP ! shake

Pretty sure that other states will follow suit or at least make the attempt to do so. Christ, they really do want to take us back to the nineteenth century.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jonb wrote:
New South Dakota Law Protects Religious Child-Placement Agencies

ACLU reports that on March 10, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB 149 (full text) into law. The new law protects adoption and foster care agencies that act in accordance with religious or moral beliefs in placing children, providing in part:
No child-placement agency may be required to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with any sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the child-placement agency.
It also explicitly bars any adverse action by the state against a child placement agency that acts in accordance with its religious or moral principles, except it does not authorize discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. One of the primary effects of the legislation is to allow agencies to refuse to permit adoptions by same-sex couples.

Dakota Free Press reported on February hearings on the bill in which an ACLU witness pointed out that the bill would allow agencies to exclude adoptions or foster care placements by
not only same-sex couples, but also people who have a different religion [from] the agency, single parents, interfaith couples… families that don’t attend church weekly, service members or gun owners… based on the agency’s moral conviction regarding pacifism, all while children in need of homes languish in foster care and await permanent families. This bill even authorizes agencies to deny a child placement with a close relative and instead place that child with strangers if that relative is of the wrong religion….

https://www.aclu.org/news/south-dakota-becomes-first-state-y...

http://dakotafreepress.com/2017/02/20/aclus-skarin-fights-sb...

a giant step backward for gay couples looking to adopt in South Dakota.Thanks GOP ! shake

Pretty sure that other states will follow suit or at least make the attempt to do so. Christ, they really do want to take us back to the nineteenth century.



The great conservative leap backwards. We are getting to see more and more what toxic bile is produced when the GOP/conservatives get a hold of the levers of power. Discrimination, hate, and fear. What wonderful "gifts" we are getting from these folks
9 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So more kids left in government care. This is what people want?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
Redmond
WA
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
So more kids left in government care. This is what people want?


It would seem that is what the posters in this thread want.

Better to close the adoption agencies down that let them operate under their founding principals.

If you were to pass away, and your last wishes for your children were to be unclear or lost, would you desire your daughter placed in a family of genital mutilators? What about a family that did not practice genital mutilation, but had even a slim chance of returning to Saudi Arabia before the child was an adult.

Don't bother to answer. We all know the answer is no, we also understand you will jump through hoops, misdirect, and make wild accusations of bigotry before you would answer yes or no.

Edit: now turn the question on its head. Would you support a Muslim child being placed in a non Muslim family?

Or you could jump, misdirect, and fail to answer, and get a bunch of ego boosting thumbs.


Yes, it does boil down to: FGM/child abuse bad, gay people ok, cross-religious upbringing ok.

Alternatively, you can have: FGM/child abuse bad, gay people bad, cross-religious upbringing bad.

I'll take the former. There are no mental backflips involved.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
If you were to pass away, and your last wishes for your children were to be unclear or lost, would you desire your daughter placed in a family of genital mutilators?


I would not.

Quote:
What about a family that did not practice genital mutilation, but had even a slim chance of returning to Saudi Arabia before the child was an adult.


Ah, now this is more interesting, but this kind of gets to the heart of the problem. What about any family that has a slim chance of moving to any foreign nation? Worrying about a child's welfare and stability is important for adoption. But this presents an interesting quandry: if you have -any- connections outside the US, should you be banned from adopting a child? What about a family that might move back to India? China? Mexico? How about Germany? Great Britain?

Quote:
Edit: now turn the question on its head. Would you support a Muslim child being placed in a non Muslim family?


Arguably, I would actually be fine with this, provided they felt it was a decent fit for the child. Same with a Catholic to a non-Catholic family and the like. It might be less than ideal, but I suspect good parents would be able to better walk this line. Also I suspect not having parents at all is probably even less ideal.

Besides, this kinda hits on the actual problem here. From what I can tell, this doesn't necessarily protect a child from that. It simply protects them as long as the orphanage's beliefs align with the child's. The orphanage could well ship all the Muslim children to non-Muslim families that it wants. Vice versa too, if you want.

So. This becomes the tough question about adoption really: how restrictive do you be without causing more harm to the children? Is it better to deny a child in need of a stable family a family because they're a same sex couple, or is it better to give them a family? These are interesting questions!

Edit: Also, which set of genital mutilators are we talking about? Are we lumping in circumcision here?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Better to close the adoption agencies down that let them operate under their founding principals.

Sure, if their founding principles are shitty.

Quote:
If you were to pass away, and your last wishes for your children were to be unclear or lost, would you desire your daughter placed in a family of genital mutilators? What about a family that did not practice genital mutilation, but had even a slim chance of returning to Saudi Arabia before the child was an adult.


But...you just criticized us for not wanting them to operate under certain "founding principles". Are you saying you agree that some "founding principles" could be shitty? That's awkward. Maybe you should think your little gotchas all the way through next time.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Anderson
msg tools
Avatar
This might be one of the greatest false equivalincies RSP has ever produced.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meh. To the SCOTUS! States try to get through crazy laws all the time. Let the process work it's magic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neon Joe, Werewolf He-yump
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Clairebot wrote:
This might be one of the greatest false equivalincies RSP has ever produced.


Amazing things can happen when Koldie gets a chance to shit on Muslims under the guise of defending children.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
What do you call the OP?

Replacing Christian with Muslim to make a point is shitting on them? Why don't you see the OP as shitting on Christians?

Because he doesn't mention Christians in any way. You brought that up as an excuse for your anti-Muslim rant. The OP treats the prospect of any religious discrimination equally.

Quote:
There is no place in an honest discussion of adoption for keeping children in a similar environment as they have so far lived?

Children in the adoption system are either too young to have formed memories or they came from a shitty home environment in which any stable home of any religious bent would be a vast improvement. There's a vanishingly small number of well-adjusted kids from stable homes in the foster system.

Quote:
I very much believe that a child raised in a Muslim family would be better off in a Muslim family if one is available and suitable, to include the particular sect of Islam. In fact I think that should be a primary consideration. Same for kids raised in a Christian environment.

Good for you. You don't seem to know much about the foster system, though ignorance rarely stops you from running your mouth. The primary consideration for kids in the system is that they go to a stable, loving home. If they have new parents that want to take them to church, a mosque, a synagogue or just the park on Sunday morning is way the fuck down the list of important things when getting kids out of foster care.

If you think a five year old kid whose parents took him to a Baptist church once in a while when they weren't high should languish in foster care because the family willing to adopt him is Sunni Islam, that's fucked up.

17 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
What do you call the OP?

Replacing Christian with Muslim to make a point is shitting on them? Why don't you see the OP as shitting on Christians?

Because he doesn't mention Christians in any way. You brought that up as an excuse for your anti-Muslim rant. The OP treats the prospect of any religious discrimination equally.

Quote:
There is no place in an honest discussion of adoption for keeping children in a similar environment as they have so far lived?

Children in the adoption system are either too young to have formed memories or they came from a shitty home environment in which any stable home of any religious bent would be a vast improvement. There's a vanishingly small number of well-adjusted kids from stable homes in the foster system.

Quote:
I very much believe that a child raised in a Muslim family would be better off in a Muslim family if one is available and suitable, to include the particular sect of Islam. In fact I think that should be a primary consideration. Same for kids raised in a Christian environment.

Good for you. You don't seem to know much about the foster system, though ignorance rarely stops you from running your mouth. The primary consideration for kids in the system is that they go to a stable, loving home. If they have new parents that want to take them to church, a mosque, a synagogue or just the park on Sunday morning is way the fuck down the list of important things when getting kids out of foster care.

If you think a five year old kid whose parents took him to a Baptist church once in a while when they weren't high should languish in foster care because the family willing to adopt him is Sunni Islam, that's fucked up.



Yeah. Put words in my mouth.

And while you are at it gloss over his. Saying church is completely different than saying Christian, just as saying mosque or synagogue has absolutely no religious connotations?

In months gone by I would have just dished it back, and you would have been oblivious to the reasons. You would not have then, nor will you now understand. But it would have been entertaining to get you going.

There are just too many people in your boat for me to plonk and it is just too risky to play your game. RSP is now a wasteland of hyper emotion and little logic.

Looking back on my posts, which were made with no malice whatsoever, and an attempt to make a point, I seriously wonder how they will fare tonight. Will I wake up and see them collapsed? Will I have a message from Matt?

It's just not worth it anymore.

Any point that isn't off the chart leftist is now hate speech. I am really debating whether to let the center leftist, occasionally moderate McSpiffy pretend to represent conservatives and just leave. I had fun. It's no longer fun. Rsp really hasn't been interesting for years. The people who made it interesting are gone.

Fuck it. Christians shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Now the conversation got nasty when apropos of nothing you mentioned genital mutilation. At that point it was obvious you equated Islam with genital mutilation. End of useful conversation. Then you wwwhine when you are called on it.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jo llyboat
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Where to start ... Koldfoot is right about so many things here.

We are too ready to assume the worst of other posters, to make assumptions about their opinions, to put words in their mouths. We are so familiar with our own viewpoints that we literally can't see the viewpoints of others.

Yes, the OP is related to christian belief. While Christianity is not monolithic, there are some American Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong. I think most Americans are aware that there is a specific group of Christians that are the proponents of this kind of legislation.

I also think, here in RSP, we gloss over anti-christian sentiment, but we notice islamophobia. So I can see why Koldfoot tried to re-frame the question, to get people to see another viewpoint. And why did he mention FGM? Perhaps because it was part of the source article; the ugly conflation of felonies (FGM and pedophilia) with religious belief and people who are homosexual.

We don't have to agree with each other. We don't even have to respect each other's opinions. But we don't need to be snarky and insulting, either.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
RSP is now a wasteland of hyper emotion and little logic.
Koldfoot wrote:
Any point that isn't off the chart leftist is now hate speech.

[eyeroll.gif]
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Fuck it. Christians shouldn't be allowed to adopt.


Of course they should be allowed to adopt, and that includes gay Christians as well ( yes they do exist ). But last I checked, gay marriage is now legal in all fifty states. In most if not all instances children waiting to be adopted are wards of the state, which pays for their basic needs and subsidizes foster care if someone is willing to provide that care. Why should the state work through and with any agency that might wish to deny otherwise qualified and willing gay people the chance to adopt ( now a legal option ) simply because their gayness offends the religious sensibilities of the people running the agency ? Why should a gay couple be denied services freely offered to others because of someone else's religious beliefs ?

Would you be comfortable if the government gave contracts to do government work to companies that willingly excluded black people from working for them ? Would you be comfortable if government agencies gave contracts to do government work to companies that willingly excluded gay people from working for them ? Why is the concept of adoption any different. Why is the religion of the owners of an adoption agency even legally relevant to their job description. If they are going to work with the wards of the state and the state in placing children into appropriate homes then they need to consider any and all legally qualified candidates regardless of religion, race, or gayness. Period.

That being said, I agree that if the child being adopted is old enough to have been brought up in a particular religious tradition before adoption then a good course of action would be ( if possible ) to pair them with a family that already shares that same religious background, regardless of what religion that is.

But, as someone else above have said already, if you think this legislation was pushed by the GOP in South Dakota for any other reason other than to deny or reduce the ability of gay people the option to adopt, then you truly are naive and have not been keeping up with the realities of the GOP in America today.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
So more kids left in government care. This is what people want?


It would seem that is what the posters in this thread want.

Better to close the adoption agencies down that let them operate under their founding principals.



They want your charity, but not your example of morality. "Take the money and run!", as the saying goes.

If folks are sooooo concerned about needy children, let them open their own adoption centers, no?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
The over simplifier speaks. How about you? Your daughter should be adopted into a family of genital mutilators, regardless of it being your brother or a family that can't have children?


Last I checked, genital mutilation is illegal. Being homosexual isn't.

Quote:
The Muslim child agency is obligated to place a child in the very loving family of pig farmers?


Yes, because best interests of the child outweigh the adoption agent's personal religious vanity. These kids are not the agency's "property".
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
So more kids left in government care. This is what people want?


It would seem that is what the posters in this thread want.

Better to close the adoption agencies down that let them operate under their founding principals.



They want your charity, but not your example of morality. "Take the money and run!", as the saying goes.

If folks are sooooo concerned about needy children, let them open their own adoption centers, no?


You are mixing up bigotry with morality. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
So more kids left in government care. This is what people want?


It would seem that is what the posters in this thread want.

Better to close the adoption agencies down that let them operate under their founding principals.



They want your charity, but not your example of morality. "Take the money and run!", as the saying goes.

If folks are sooooo concerned about needy children, let them open their own adoption centers, no?


You are mixing up bigotry with morality. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.


Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18


Just lol.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Rhetoric is will doing the work of imagination." - Yeats
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jasonwocky wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18


Just lol.


Mockery: same way your forefathers were destroyed.

10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”

18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
~Romans 3
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18


Just lol.


Mockery: same way your forefathers were destroyed.

10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”

18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
~Romans 3

Do you not realise that bible thumping immediately loses the argument?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18


Just lol.


Mockery: same way your forefathers were destroyed.


This may be hard for you to believe, but mocking you isn't the same as mocking God.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out!

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." 1st Corinthians 6:18


Just lol.


Mockery: same way your forefathers were destroyed.

10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”

14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”

18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
~Romans 3

Do you not realise that bible thumping immediately loses the argument?


It is the cyanide laced molar, firmly chomped down upon.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AdamTracey wrote:
"So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last." Matthew 20:16

So by losing the argument, he actually wins it. Checkmate atheists.



We're a ship without a storm
Cold without the warm
Light inside the darkness lit at peace

We're a laugh without a tear
Hope without the fear
We are coming home

We're off to the witch
We may never never never come home
But the magic that we'll feel is worth a lifetime

We're all thrown upon the cross
We'll be thrown before the toss
You can release yourself but the only way is down

We don't come alone
We are fire we are stone
We're the hand that writes and quickly moves away
We'll know for the first time
If we're evil or divine
We're the last in line, yeah
We're the last in line

Two eyes from the east
It's the angel of the beast
And the answer lies between all good and bad

We search for the truth
We could die upon the tooth
But the thrill of just the chase is worth the pain

We'll know for the first time
If we're evil or divine
We're the last in line yeah
We're the last in line oh

Yeah

We're off to the witch
We may never never never come home
But the magic that we'll feel is worth a lifetime

We're all thrown upon the cross
We'll be thrown before the toss
You can release yourself but the only way is down

We'll know for the first time
If we're evil or divine
We're the last in line oh
We're the last in line

See how we shine

We're the last in line
We're a ship without a storm
We're cold inside the warm
We're the last without a tear
We're the throw without the meal
(We're the last in line)
See how we shine
We're the last in line
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.