Beggs/Texas/Transgender Athletes

[Ben E Lou]

I commented a while back, not sure if on here, FB, or FOxL, but I know somewhere, that high school athletics would eventually become a major battlefront/conundrum for transgender-related stuff, and that it would be somewhere with rules designed to prevent some dude claiming he's a girl in order to dominate. It seemed fairly obvious that eventually a female-to-male transgender would bite one of those places in the butt.

Texas, thanks for making me feel smart today!

Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs of Euless Trinity wins Texas state girls wrestling title

Without getting into all the politics of the transgender stuff, isn't there a relatively easy solution to keep competition fair? Am I correct that girl-to-boy transitioners ramp up their testosterone, and boy-to-girl transitioners take stuff to reduce it?

If that's correct, then I say that if an athlete wants to compete with a gender that's not their biological one their family pays for a blood test. Have a sports medicine professional recommend two testosterone* level numbers, X and Y.

X = the highest reasonable level for a biological female teen who isn't taking hormones, juicing, etc.

Y = the highest reasonable level for a biological male teen who isn't taking hormones, juicing, etc.

If your level is below X, you compete as a girl.

If your level is between X and Y, you compete as a boy.

If your level is above Y, you're deemed to be at "performance-enhancing substance" level, and therefore you are disqualified from competition.




*--Obviously, I'm no medical professional; maybe there are other hormone levels that matter here as well. But in general, isn't something like this doable and wouldn't it level the playing field?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The anti-logic "self-indentifies" crowd will simply cry until they can find a judge & have something this rational tossed.

We've already allowed common sense to be kicked to the curb in so many areas why would sports ultimately be any different?

The problem with your proposal is really in your premise: you're looking for something to "keep competition fair". That isn't the goal others are/would be looking for.

[miked]

Well, didn't they pass a law that said one had to compete with the gender on one's birth certificate? Seems like they set themselves up for this.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, didn't they pass a law that said one had to compete with the gender on one's birth certificate? Seems like they set themselves up for this.

Shhh, he's on a roll.

[stevew]

Pretty silly that this athlete could compete with an artificially enhanced testosterone level. That's not fair, regardless of the gender politics.

[tarcone]

I always wanted to be a state champion at something. If only this had been around in the 80s. Damn.

[digamma]

Ooh, there's the #hottaek we are all looking for!

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I always wanted to be a state champion at something. If only this had been around in the 80s. Damn.

You think your athletic ability would have been enhanced with estrogen therapy?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

You think your athletic ability would have been enhanced with estrogen therapy?

No but most above average male wrestlers would dominate their female counterparts in high school. AT that age level there just isnt enough time for training to have overcome genetic disadvantages in my opinions.

Our high school has a girl who wrestles. She is the 3rd chair in our small HS at her weight class. Our regular meets do not have a male and female division. At the state level we have male and female individual state champs. The 3rd chair at a small high school is the 3x defending state girls champ. And it isnt some odd technicality, where she is the only 1. I think there were 24 girls at state in her weight class.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The anti-logic "self-indentifies" crowd will simply cry until they can find a judge & have something this rational tossed.

We've already allowed common sense to be kicked to the curb in so many areas why would sports ultimately be any different?

The problem with your proposal is really in your premise: you're looking for something to "keep competition fair". That isn't the goal others are/would be looking for.

Here's the thing: there are activists who are trying to insist that everyone believe as they believe, and there are just plain ol' folks struggling with all of the ramifications of this stuff. I've seen pretty up-close the great damage activists can do in the arena of adoption. (Short version: all that your activism to force everyone to do gay adoptions is doing is dooming more children to remain in foster care, because you're causing agencies to shut down. You don't care about rescuing a child from a bad situation; you just want to force any adoption agency that disagrees with you to do things your way or close its doors.) As you know, I have some strong libertarian tendencies in some areas. The activists just wanting to force their way on others can go take a 20-yard walk off a 10-foot plank as far as I'm concerned. But apart from the politics of whether it's "right" to be transgender, my suggestion seems like it would work fine for people who just want a fair competitive enviornment. Now maybe you're right and the overwhelming majority are trying to change everyone else. But from everything I've read about *this* family, I'm not seeing that. There could be more that comes out about this situation, but so far, it looks like the decision-makers made a dumb "zero-tolerance" type call, and now they've got egg on their faces.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The anti-logic "self-indentifies" crowd will simply cry until they can find a judge & have something this rational tossed.

We've already allowed common sense to be kicked to the curb in so many areas why would sports ultimately be any different?

The problem with your proposal is really in your premise: you're looking for something to "keep competition fair". That isn't the goal others are/would be looking for.

Which is why this case interests me. This person just wants to compete and actually preferred to compete against men, but he was not allowed due to a TX law. I don't see the quote in this article, but I read a different one where the parents stated this.

He just wants to compete in Wrestling, does not want to deal with the politics and does not want to champion any cause. So my question for the anti-transgender(is anti the word?) crowd, is a solution similar to Ben's acceptable or is the only answer that people can't transgender and/or transgenders can't compete.

[jeff061]

Quick search.
High School Transgender Wrestler Wins Texas Regional Title | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

"Beggs' grandmother said Beggs wants to compete against boys but will follow UIL rules."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

it looks like the decision-makers made a dumb "zero-tolerance" type call

Clarification upon re-reading my own post: by this I meant that this rule seems similar to "zero-tolerance" rules where all decision-making power is removed, no matter what the circumstances.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Which is why this case interests me. This person just wants to compete and actually preferred to compete against men, but he was not allowed due to a TX law. I don't see the quote in this article, but I read a different one where the parents stated this.

He just wants to compete in Wrestling, does not want to deal with the politics and does not want to champion any cause. So my question for the anti-transgender(is anti the word?) crowd, is a solution similar to Ben's acceptable or is the only answer that people can't transgender and/or transgenders can't compete.

While I'm not "anti transgender", I do want a level playing field. The issue with that is how the hell can we know what a level playing field is when the data on transgender athletes is so damned small?

I don't have a problem with Ben's solution, but I also don't think it's workable. Testing in HS sports is controversial enough as it is, now we are going to pick just the transgenders for this test? Why not test everyone, because the girl who beat my daughter in soccer was clearly on something, right? The other side will say you are simply against Trans Gender athletes and are trying to make things more difficult for them. (and I'm sure the phrase "you are violating their civil rights" will be worked in somewhere)

I know the Olympics do have gender testing:

Failed gender test forces Olympian to redefine athletic career - ESPN The Magazine


I don't think that works at a HS level. I don't know that there is a solution to this issue at that level of competition.

[CU Tiger]

From a more nuts and bolts perspective, I think the problem is the wide range of "normal" hormone levels, when you add pubescent spikes into the equation you get ranges outside of the controllable domain I suspect.

And not to single someone out or be offensive, but for an example we are all familiar with. Take a Britney Griner (sp?), as far as I know she has never attempted to trans but just given her physical appearance, size and performance I suspect there is a high probability her T levels are elevated significantly. Possibly well above that of a transitioning female who otherwise had "normal" hormone levels and is currently doping to transition.

None of this even calls into question the ethics of "allowing" a child going through that horribly awkward stage of development as is to begin to permanently transition their gender in the first place.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Here's the thing: there are activists who are trying to insist that everyone believe as they believe, and there are just plain ol' folks struggling with all of the ramifications of this stuff. I've seen pretty up-close the great damage activists can do in the arena of adoption. (Short version: all that your activism to force everyone to do gay adoptions is doing is dooming more children to remain in foster care, because you're causing agencies to shut down. You don't care about rescuing a child from a bad situation; you just want to force any adoption agency that disagrees with you to do things your way or close its doors.) As you know, I have some strong libertarian tendencies in some areas. The activists just wanting to force their way on others can go take a 20-yard walk off a 10-foot plank as far as I'm concerned. But apart from the politics of whether it's "right" to be transgender, my suggestion seems like it would work fine for people who just want a fair competitive enviornment. Now maybe you're right and the overwhelming majority are trying to change everyone else. But from everything I've read about *this* family, I'm not seeing that. There could be more that comes out about this situation, but so far, it looks like the decision-makers made a dumb "zero-tolerance" type call, and now they've got egg on their faces.

Or those agencies can just read the actual data that suggest that gay parents do not cause more children to be gay or damage children in any particular way compared to heterosexual couples.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miked

Or those agencies can just read the actual data that suggest that gay parents do not cause more children to be gay or damage children in any particular way compared to heterosexual couples.

Or how about not trying to force a religious institution to go against their beliefs, and in the process shut them down and send more kids into Foster Care?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I don't know that there is a solution to this issue at that level of competition.

Which leaves the strong possibility that you simple have to shut it down at that point.

Or you start amending state constitutions to legally define what constitutes "gender".

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Or how about not trying to force a religious institution to go against their beliefs, and in the process shut them down and send more kids into Foster Care?

Yep, happens all the time. Religious institutions can not take away the rights of others in the name of their belief. Think of all the kids sent back to foster care because of the uncompromising beliefs of the Church of Satan.

Where I think this gets interesting is what if a gay couple claims they are Christians, but are denied adoption? Does the religious institution in charge get to say what is and what isn't acceptable Christian practice? Should there be a sign that says you can do all these things: atheist, adultery, root for the Dodgers, divorce. But if are gay, that is anathema?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Which is why this case interests me. This person just wants to compete and actually preferred to compete against men, but he was not allowed due to a TX law. I don't see the quote in this article, but I read a different one where the parents stated this.

He just wants to compete in Wrestling, does not want to deal with the politics and does not want to champion any cause. So my question for the anti-transgender(is anti the word?) crowd, is a solution similar to Ben's acceptable or is the only answer that people can't transgender and/or transgenders can't compete.

I'll take a stab at the question, 'cause it seems to be a completely fair one to ask.

I think we're at (okay, past) the point where testing for performance enhancing substances should be the norm for HS athletics in general.
So from that standpoint, I have no problem with Ben's concept of testing.

So how does that apply here?

For me, Texas intent for the rule was correct. Biological gender (or whatever phrase they used) should be the determinant for gender separated competitions.

Now where I think they missed the boat was by not having a component that set X & Y norms (yes, I'm going shorthand here, give me that leeway okay 'cause I wasn't part of a ten person team working on the Human Genome Project)

At that point, let's assume that whatever chemical treatment that the wrestler in question was using left them outside those ranges. At that point they would be ineligible for competition. You will compete in the biological applicable gender, you can "self-identify" as whatever on your own time if you feel the need to do so ... but you can also get banned from the appropriate competition if you're chemically altering in a performance enhancing manner.

I think that sums up my answer to the question I think you were asking.
If not, my bad 'cause I gave it a good faith try.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Yep, happens all the time. Religious institutions can not take away the rights of others in the name of their belief. Think of all the kids sent back to foster care because of the uncompromising beliefs of the Church of Satan.

Where I think this gets interesting is what if a gay couple claims they are Christians, but are denied adoption? Does the religious institution in charge get to say what is and what isn't acceptable Christian practice? Should there be a sign that says you can do all these things: atheist, adultery, root for the Dodgers, divorce. But if are gay, that is anathema?

This is one of those things that is so tough on so many levels.

I have zero problem with gay parents. Zippo, not a one.

But we "exclude" people all the time for all sorts of reasons. Want to play golf at Augusta? Good luck with that. You'd better have a crapload of money, be the right gender (or married to one) and for the most part you had better be the right color.

When it comes to state or government, the issue is a slam dunk for me. The person not signing gay marriage licenses? Go to hell. Seriously, go there. Follow the law. The people who don't get their kids medical care because God will save them? You go to hell too. The people who treat gays nastily because they are gay? Read your damned book and realize that isn't the way to go. (note: only speaking to Christians here, there are other religions where the book says to kill them, you probably shouldn't read yours)

Having an adoption agency and wanting to pick the type of parents you want? I don't know.

[miked]

If you are an adoption agency, religious or not, you should pick the parents that will best take care of the children. If you want to discriminate, get out of the business. If you want to discriminate based on interpretations of a book written by men a long time ago, even worse. I look at Ben's statements and wonder how many of these institutions could have placed children if they had an objective sense of what the parents would be, rather than basing it off a book that a good chunk of people don't follow. If you are going to rail against the horrors of abortion, how about being a bit more open to what being a good potential parent would be outside of sexual orientation.

Oh, and this is not golfing at Augusta we are talking about.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by miked

If you want to discriminate, get out of the business.

So at least you're willing to admit that you want to force everyone to believe as you do or be shut down. *shurg*

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But we "exclude" people all the time for all sorts of reasons. Want to play golf at Augusta? Good luck with that. You'd better have a crapload of money, be the right gender (or married to one) and for the most part you had better be the right color.


Having an adoption agency and wanting to pick the type of parents you want? I don't know.

Very well said. I would just add that in golf you have to have a score to qualify. Foster parents too have to qualify. And Obergefell concluded that sexual orientation does not prevent one from being a good parent. So, for the religious institutions to deny same sex foster care would be to exclude the well qualified applicants for something that has nothing to do in being a well qualified applicant.

I think this also carries over to the specif topic here. There needs to be an legal/rational/scientific understanding about who who is a well qualified male/female. Therefore, any other exclusion, segregation can be seen as a moral act, rather than legal.

[Ben E Lou]

I truly don't understand that way of thinking. Let the agencies do their thing. You want a birth mother that wants a traditional family only? Go to Mother Mary Adoption Agency. You want a birth mother that is more open to gay adoption? Go to Rainbow Adoption Agency down the street. In case people didn't realize it, at many agencies the birth mother has a strong say in which family gets the baby placed, so it's dumb for a conservative Christian family to go to the Rainbow agency and it's equally dumb for a gay couple to go to Mother Mary. Many (perhaps most) birth mothers pick specialized agencies *BECAUSE* they specialize in a particular type of adoptive family with which the birth mother would like to have an ongoing relationship.

It's unproductive and harmful to try to shut down the ones that don't do things the way you want them to.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by miked

If you want to discriminate, get out of the business.

If you are in the business, not taking federal money, and have children entrusted to you then you should be able to do so as you see fit. There is no harm being done to the child with this particular standard being applied, so there's no real reason to disallow it. If cities, states, whatever don't want that to happen, then they need to codify it so that there is no confusion on the matter.

[Noop]

ITT: People with interesting opinions.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I truly don't understand that way of thinking. Let the agencies do their thing. You want a birth mother that wants a traditional family only? Go to Mother Mary Adoption Agency? You want a birth mother that is more open to gay adoption? Go to Rainbow Adoption Agency down the street.

And those that don't want to adopt to interracial couples, or want to make sure that kids don't go to Jewish or Catholic parents?

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So at least you're willing to admit that you want to force everyone to believe as you do or be shut down. *shurg*

They can believe what they want, but as far as being forced not discriminate or violate the civil rights of there, yes.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by miked

If you are an adoption agency, religious or not, you should pick the parents that will best take care of the children. If you want to discriminate, get out of the business. If you want to discriminate based on interpretations of a book written by men a long time ago, even worse. I look at Ben's statements and wonder how many of these institutions could have placed children if they had an objective sense of what the parents would be, rather than basing it off a book that a good chunk of people don't follow. If you are going to rail against the horrors of abortion, how about being a bit more open to what being a good potential parent would be outside of sexual orientation.

Oh, and this is not golfing at Augusta we are talking about.

That was just an example.

I'm not saying what SHOULD happen. I wish all of us could just get along. I'm the poly ana idiot who still gets upset at the lies spewed by both parties. I just fail to see how these religious agencies are hurting children. A good chunk of people DO follow that book by the way. If an atheist had a child and it was important for her that child be raised by atheist parents, I would respect that belief too.

If this is a government funded enterprise, I think it's a no brainer that they should be forced to adopt to any qualified parent. But a private one? As I said above, there are a lot of layers and I haven't looked into all of them (such as how hard it is for a gay person to adopt outside of these agencies as one example) But I have an issue with it anytime someone says YOU HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE I SAID SO when it doesn't involve the hurting of anyone.

I wasn't allowed to take communion in my own wedding because I wasn't Catholic (and had no intention of becoming one) I didn't say a word about it. Their church, their rules. I have yet to see that those agencies were harming children. To that end, I tend to error on the side of respecting their beliefs.

I'm NOT talking about you, so don't get pissed off here. . . I kind of doubt there would be a lot of outrage from the left if it were anything other than Christianity trying to place children while excluding someone else.

Just for the hell of it, I searched "I'm a Muslim and I want my adopted child to be raised with Muslim parents" First link was the Muslim Adoption Network who on their FAQ talks about sending them an email and they will try to honor your wishes.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I truly don't understand that way of thinking. Let the agencies do their thing. You want a birth mother that wants a traditional family only? Go to Mother Mary Adoption Agency. You want a birth mother that is more open to gay adoption? Go to Rainbow Adoption Agency down the street. In case people didn't realize it, at many agencies the birth mother has a strong say in which family gets the baby placed, so it's dumb for a conservative Christian family to go to the Rainbow agency and it's equally dumb for a gay couple to go to Mother Mary. Many (perhaps most) birth mothers pick specialized agencies *BECAUSE* they specialize in a particular type of adoptive family with which the birth mother would like to have an ongoing relationship.

It's unproductive and harmful to try to shut down the ones that don't do things the way you want them to.

This seems different than what you originally posted. You were talking about a child in a bad situation in foster care. Now you are talking about the intentions of a birth mother?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

This seems different than what you originally posted. You were talking about a child in a bad situation in foster care. Now you are talking about the intentions of a birth mother?

more children are going to foster care (rather than being adopted) and remaining there when agencies shut down. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought it was.

[Ben E Lou]

Just realized what may have caused the confusion: many infants who are going to be adopted go straight to foster care in my home state because there's a 10-day period where the birth mother can change her mind (some adoptive parents don't want the emotional risk of having the child removed from the home at the 11th hour), so when I speak of foster care, it's often on the assumption that infants are headed there before being placed.

[CraigSca]

Just to add a little international flavor to this thread (since we adopted a couple years ago, and frankly this is what I thought Ben was originally talking about).

Most countries (from what I could find only South Africa and Brazil are the outliers) do not allow gay or lesbian couples to adopt their children, while single-women are usually ok. It is up to the country itself to allow or disallow certain segments of the population, not the adoption agency.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Just to add a little international flavor to this thread (since we adopted a couple years ago, and frankly this is what I thought Ben was originally talking about).

Most countries (from what I could find only South Africa and Brazil are the outliers) do not allow gay or lesbian couples to adopt their children, while single-women are usually ok. It is up to the country itself to allow or disallow certain segments of the population, not the adoption agency.

Yeah, I was aware of that, but that wasn't the direction I was going. I can't imagine that even the most short-sighted activists would try to go after those situations.

[miked]

I'm just curious, and I thought Ben was referring to permanent adoption. If an organization is a non-profit and gets federal tax breaks, shouldn't they NOT discriminate? I mean, what's to stop a bunch of white nationalists from starting their own adoption agency because they convince everyone that black parents are somehow less fit.

[larrymcg421]

Public accommodations rules have been in place for 50 years. Now people suddenly have a problem with that because those rules are now applying to gays. The question isn't whether people are forced to serve or cater to certain groups of people despite their beliefs. We have already decided that it is entirely appropriate to do exactly that. The real question is if gays deserve the same protections. If you don't believe they do, that's absolutely your right to believe that, but it's an entirely different argument than the one you're making.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miked

If you want to discriminate, get out of the business.

You made your point well, and I'm not trying to pick nits here, but I think it's important to point out that everyone discriminates. In fact your post advocates discrimination; it's just discrimination of a different kind.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Public accommodations rules have been in place for 50 years. Now people suddenly have a problem with that because those rules are now applying to gays.

I don't think so. I think they are just the latest hot-button issue. Once the nation has largely moved past them it'll be something else. I'm on the side of the argument where I think for the most part public accommodation laws go too far in restricting individual freedom. I definitely think it is wrong to say 'class X of people are protected but gays aren't'. The whole public accommodation idea is very well-intentioned but ultimately wrong IMO.

[Ben E Lou]

Mike and Larry, I think you've forgotten how libertarian my thinking really is in this area. I'm fairly certain that I'm on the record at this forum from at least 10 years ago, having nothing to do with gays, as saying that I thought public accommodations rules had outlived their usefulness. I just don't mention it much any more because it's usually not worth the trouble, but when it comes to authoritarian/statist thinking causing issues in something I care about like adoption, it might come out. And I certainly don't think said rules should apply to private adoption agencies. Let the white supremacists have theirs, the big-tents have theirs, and let the free market decide. (Frankly, I strongly suspect that if all parties would live and let live, more kids would end up in loving homes.)

Speaking more generally, you're not going to have a large-scale successful business in 2017 if you have a "no niggers allowed" sign out front, but if you want to limit your audience to those who want to buy from you in spite of (more likely, because of) that sentiment, I don't buy into the thinking for one second that the government should be stepping in to save you from your own stupidity. I'm all for letting dummies self-identify. *shurg*

[Abe Sargent]

Hello all!

A few thoughts on adoption. All of my siblings are adopted. Here are a few stories.

1). Why do I not have a brother? When I was 4, my family, married, protestant minister, and teacher, were able to get a baby boy in Pittsburgh. We drove out there, met the family, and the baby. He had just been born a day before we arrived, and we are approved. But the family, who was black, were not comfortable with placing their child with an all-white family, so they backed out. I was never sure what happened eventually with him, but I do know that he was put into Foster Care at least temporarily, as there was no one else lined up for him. In this case, race played a part in me not having a brother.

By the way, I don't have anything against the family. It's their child, they can place them where they want. Two of my sisters are half-black and half-white and were placed fine. So we have raised folks that's weren;t white fine, and I;m sure the boy is fine today, somewhere.

So the parents were free to discriminate solely on the basis of race, and were allowed to do so. Anyone who thinks that race-, class-, or other based placements don't occur is not really understanding the system. I've helped about 12 families with adoption applications, research, and more as an adult, because I went through it as a brother six times, four of those times successfully. It's still a part of the system.

2). As a conservative Christian, I take umbrage with the description that I (or my people) choose placements based off a centuries old book that was interpretation by people long dead. It's not Shakespeare. It's holy scripture, and it has value and meaning to my life beyond that. And this is not just my own interpretation. The Bible is clearly against sex between people of the same gender (note that the Bible is not against gay people, just the sexual act itself. In a similar way, drunkenness is discussed as wrong and sinful, and I'd argue that some people have certain proclivities to drink and get intoxicated).

There are numerous scriptures that state this. This is not a "why I think having sex with people of the same sex is wrong" conversation, so I'll not quote it, but it's in both New and Old testaments. Both. The Bible is clearly against it.

So I don't want people who are married in a partnership where they are doing something wrong on that level. If I had a child, I would not want that child placed with a gay or lesbian couple. Because I think their relationship is expressed in a sinful way on a constant an ongoing basis.

3). Similarly, the Bible is also very, very clear on the value of marriage and divorce, and Christ himself talks about it. Divorce is wrong, period. (Barring a few exceptions like abuse or cheating.) And if you divorce and get remarried, then you are cheating. That;s Jesus's own words. Again, not my interpretation of some side comment someone made somewhere along the line. And I don't want any hypothetical child I have to be raised with a couple that has one or more partners on their 3rd or 4th marriage, and living in a ongoing sinful relationship. I want people in their 1st marriage (barring exceptions as mentioned above, or someone dying and such), straight, and Christians

Now that includes faith. Marriages. Straight relationships, and more. But if it's my kid, then I have a right to ensure they get the place I want them to have the best success, not just financially, but in terms of a loving, stable, unlikely to divorce later, God-loving and God-blessed union. And I have the same right to discriminate against someone who is not in that three, as the black family had in Pittsburgh in choosing to not place their son with me and my family.


For me, it's important to remember that in our society, marriages have become very disposable. Love seems to be all about me. Listen to the latest RomCom or TV show. I can;t live without you. I can;t imagine my life without you. No! It's more of, "I want to spend the rest of my life making you happy, and serving you." "I want to try and make you as happy as you made me." There is a selflessness to love that we are missing a lot in America today in our relationships, and that's what I'd want, straight, actively Christian (not just checking it on a box) family with a positive marriage.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Mike and Larry, I think you've forgotten how libertarian my thinking really is in this area. I'm fairly certain that I'm on the record at this forum from at least 10 years ago, having nothing to do with gays, as saying that I thought public accommodations rules had outlived their usefulness. I just don't mention it much any more because it's usually not worth the trouble, but when it comes to authoritarian/statist thinking causing issues in something I care about like adoption, it might come out. And I certainly don't think said rules should apply to private adoption agencies. Let the white supremacists have theirs, the big-tents have theirs, and let the free market decide. (Frankly, I strongly suspect that if all parties would live and let live, more kids would end up in loving homes.)

Speaking more generally, you're not going to have a large-scale successful business in 2017 if you have a "no niggers allowed" sign out front, but if you want to limit your audience to those who want to buy from you in spite of (more likely, because of) that sentiment, I don't buy into the thinking for one second that the government should be stepping in to save you from your own stupidity. I'm all for letting dummies self-identify. *shurg*

I think we are in agreement. The only issue is that a lot of these religious organizations get state and federal subsidies I believe. I agree that in cases like what you mention, the free market works. However, it also seems that the same people that discriminate in their own organizations run the states as well and lock those discriminations in to laws. I'm not really sure what the appropriate cause of action, I just can't stand people who make up things to promote a discriminatory agenda (not you).

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Speaking more generally, you're not going to have a large-scale successful business in 2017 if you have a "no niggers allowed" sign out front

Maybe not a business, but I think folks are willing to give a statehouse a try!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think so. I think they are just the latest hot-button issue. Once the nation has largely moved past them it'll be something else. I'm on the side of the argument where I think for the most part public accommodation laws go too far in restricting individual freedom. I definitely think it is wrong to say 'class X of people are protected but gays aren't'. The whole public accommodation idea is very well-intentioned but ultimately wrong IMO.

This is where I stand. Ben also put it well.

I don't want to come off as uncaring, but I think individual freedoms are important and I'm not sure the public accommodation laws are needed.

I think many of the laws are actually far more damaging than what they are protecting. I know why they were put in place. I see what the thought process was. I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it.

I posted the note about the Muslim adoption agency above. With just a few clicks you can find the Jewish Children's Adoption Network whose stated primary goal is to find Jewish homes for Jewish children. It isn't hard to find other religions with the same stated goals. I don't have a problem with any of them.

[cuervo72]

[snark]So there are networks whose primary goal is finding non-gay homes for non-gay children?[/snark]

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

[snark]So there are networks whose primary goal is finding non-gay homes for non-gay children?[/snark]

I know it was a snark post, but as I said above, I haven't really researched how hard it is for a gay couple to adopt. I do know there are a couple of states who still don't allow it which is disgusting on a lot of levels to me.

But in terms of a gay couple wanting to adopt, how much harder is it and how much more money does it take for them to get a child. I'm not being snarky here. I'm fully admitting my lack of information on the subject could easily make a difference in my viewpoint.

It's such a minefield. I believe strongly in individual rights, but I also believe that a gay family should be allowed to adopt a child. Ugh. Why is life so hard?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But in terms of a gay couple wanting to adopt, how much harder is it and how much more money does it take for them to get a child.

Laws vary from state to state, so there may be some travel expense involved depending on where you live. And I believe it's still true that in some states, a gay person can adopt individually but the couple can't adopt jointly. (Definitely was true a few years ago. Talk about taking teh dumb to the next level...) Based on stats I've seem, gay couples tend to be more open to adopting a different race, so that improves their odds (and lowers their cost in some instances.)

All that to say: depending on where a gay couple lives and what sort of adoption they're wanting to do, it can be easier, no different, or more difficult. But there are so many variables in adoption I suspect that it's extremely difficult to truly quantify. As a result, both sides are able to cherry-pick stats that support their point. Some are obvious, such as "Gay couples adopt at a higher rate than straight couples." Uhhh.....

[AENeuman]

Very good article explaining this adoption and sports tensions over religious freedom and expression http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517092...ntent=20170228

[larrymcg421]

If you've always been against public accommodations laws, then great. I strongly disagree with you, but that's not the point of my earlier post.

My point is that we've had these laws in place for decades, so it's not this random sudden thing where we're trying to tell businesses they can't deny service to people. We've already been doing that and it wasn't a problem until recently when gays wanted those same public accommodations laws to apply to them. Suddenly we have all these stupid religious freedom laws.

And I also strongly dispute that it's forcing others to believe in something. A racist store owner doesn't have to believe in racial equality. He just can't deny service based on that belief.

[cartman]

[Ben E Lou]

So as the father of two girls, I can say definitively that if my daughters are ever put in this situation, I'll be livid. There is simply on way that any rational person can claim that this is fair competition, unless we've decided to get rid of gender-based competition entirely.

Short version: Biological male. Identifies as female. No hormonal treatments. No surgery. Only requirement to compete appears to be "I identify as a girl." Won state championship in 100m and 200m as a freshman.



Jeff Jacobs: As We Rightfully Applaud Yearwood, We Must Acknowledge Many Questions Remain - Hartford Courant

[tarcone]

Look at the muscular differences. That "boy" has a lot more definition.

And this leads to little girls with short hair cuts having their soccer teams banned from tournaments.

Always collateral damage no one thinks about.