The Glade 4.0

If a couple of neo-nazis, want to adopt a kid, and they readily admit that they intend to teach him to hate other races, admire Hitler, etc., should they be allowed to adopt? How about a couple of fundamentalist Muslims who want to adopt a young girl and raise her according to the most Taliban-like teachings the law will allow? What if instead the would-be parents are relatively mainstream, except for intense disgust and hatred for homosexuals?

And then what if we dial all of that back and instead go with less caricatured examples? If the couples in question are simply a little bigoted, or Muslim traditionalists, or strongly object to homosexuality but don't hate gay people, etc.?

Yes. If they really have such extreme beliefs, they will be quite likely to also have some other reason that would stop them from adopting. There's no need to screen based on beliefs.

Of course, private organizations should be allowed to do so if they wish. I'm talking purely about legal adoption.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've of the belief that you can not punish people based on thought alone. If these extreme examples were to commit a criminal act based on their thoughts and is charged then no, they shouldn't be able to adopt. Other wise, not allowing adoption would be discrimination.

People teach their kids (adopted or not) all sorts of weird things, it's not for us to regulate thought. Plus, personally for me, weird generally unaccepted thoughts are better than being unstable, moving from place to place and learning generally unaccepted thoughts. Trading unacceptated stability for unaccepted instability is still a good thing.

Dave, an anti-gay Nazi Muslim like you wants to adopt? One would think you hate adoption and kids as well . . .

Just kidding of course.

Where does the line get drawn RD? Who decides who gets to adopt and who is too extreme in their beliefs to adopt? I don't, nor do I want to push my standards on anyone else. This is an issue I leave up to the courts and the cumulative will of the people.

Personally, the extremists you describe, no. As far as the dialed back versions, maybe, it would depend on all the other factors that go into deciding if someone can adopt. You will never find anyone who will please everyone who could weigh in on it. You can argue that everyone is a little bit bigoted whether they want to admit it or not. Traditional Islam is a perfectly reasonable way to raise a child, if adhered to without the mutilation practiced by some sects. Most of the Christians and Muslims I know, not all by any stretch, but most object to homosexuality on at least some level. Most of the Jewish folk I know don't object, at least not publicly.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

If they're wackos, that's grounds for disqualification.

I know that's not what you mean, though. I'd say that if the beliefs do not constitute abuse (understandably, this is not clear cut) then they should not be disqualified.

If they promote crimes, then that should disqualify them.

I'll come out and say it. Yes.

However, I also support mothers giving their children up for adoption being able to "screen," as it were, based on either being involved in the process and/or through choice of adoption agency, which can screen based on the parents' wishes or their own, unregulated policies.

Does the gay-beating Muslim skinhead have a right to adopt? No, and therefore can't claim discrimination if he has difficulty finding anybody who wants to put a child's life, future, and impressionable mind in his hands.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

This is where I disagree with you. It should be more the case of:
Does the gay-beating Muslim skinhead have the right to adopt? Yes
Do you (as an mother or an institute) have the right to deny him? Yes

This is one of those times that Elmo will probably jump in and point out that two things can't both be a right if they're mutually exclusive.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Adoption in its current state is just the federal government profiting from the sale of children.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It isn't a monopoly Corolinth, the lawyers make a lot on each adoption too.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Anyone should be able to adopt a child pending investigation into a safe home. Anything past that is irrelevant. If the child ends up growing to be a racist *******, wait until he commits his first crime and charge him for it. If he ends up becoming a racist ******* and never commits a crime, good for him.

IMO anyone without a felony conviction should be able to adopt.

Until we make laws restricting who can get pregnant, we shouldn't really restrict who can adopt.

This. Who is to say what is or isn't a wrong belief? Personally I don't think voters should be allowed to adopt cause those psychos think they can change reality.

_________________

who is to say what is "safe" ?

Child services?

Criminal history.

What if you're really evil but never get caught?

+1

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html

On point.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Every system has it's flaws.

It's another issue where the government needs to stay out if it and let individuals and organizations operate according to the dictates of their conscience and beliefs.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Can you demonstrate this? I suspect strongly this is not the case. Especially since they don't deal in adoptions, for the most part (to my knowledge, though I believe they control foster care). It's regulated by the states.

Would neo-nazi want to risk adopting a baby that might possibly not be pure-blood?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Sure, it's tough to find Jews to work in your factories these days. Hitler went overboard and spoiled it for everyone else. Now you have to raise your own work campers.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/03/01/cou ... r-parents/

In Great Britain it can prevent you from being a foster parent it appears.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Yeah, that's the story that got me thinking about it, UF (different source for me, though!).