Brickbats

Brickbat: It's for the Children

|

Canadian Flag
Denys Kuvaiev/Dreamstime

A couple in Canada say Alberta Children's Services rejected their application to adopt a child because they have traditional Christian views on sexuality. The couple say the process went fine until they had a follow up visit from a caseworker who asked them their views on homosexuality and they said they believe that it is wrong and that sexuality should be explored only after one is an adult and married.

NEXT: The Secret Meaning of Thanksgiving Dinner

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The couple, who aren’t named in the legal documents, said they treat all people with respect and their views on sexuality would have no bearing on their ability to provide a loving, secure and happy home to a child.

    They were disqualified for being liars.

    1. Anne of Green Gables shouldn’t have been adopted by fundamentalists, she should have been raised by a couple of dominatrixes in a long-term same-sex relationship.

    2. Do pray tell. How?

  2. Political correctness is the new social conservatism.

  3. The Canadians *do* have the moral high ground when it comes to cute, innocent baby mammals being mistreated.

  4. Hey, y’all could immigrate to Alabammy and we’ll get you fixed up with more unwanted children than you can shake a whip at. We don’t abide no homosexurals in Alabammy. Plus it’s legal here to lynch them goddamn librulz what thwarted God’s Plans for Ordered Liberty under Herbert Hoover and the Eighteenth Amendment. Only problem is, we cain’t stand to be invaded by frostback furriners comin’ here to steal our jobs. And nobody speaks High School French in Alabammy, so why not try Lousyanna, two states over?

    1. And your point is?

    2. Hank, Google Chrome has spell check. Please use it.

  5. See how helpful a first amendment can be? This could never happen here.
    Until the concept of “sensible controls” spreads from the second.

  6. I don’t know how you can waste your time talking about such silliness when Fox News is reporting the outrageous news that Target is selling an upside-down Christmas tree. I’m not sure if this is blasphemy against one of the most sacred symbols of Christianity and the little carpenter Baby Jesus who chopped down a pine tree to build the manger he was born in or they’re mocking the sacred American tradition of spending a shitload of money on fake plastic crap or just the normal despicable reaction of making sure to celebrate the opposite of Trump and his right-side-up tree. In any case, it’s an outrage that the failing losers at Target are selling this thing. Sad!

    1. Bad turkey hangover?

    2. Hmm, if the Christmas tree was originally pagan, does an inverted version mean it’s MORE Christian?

  7. I wonder if Children’s Services have any questions for Hindus or Muslims that would be disqualifying?

    1. Adoption is a first-world thing. There’s probably so few Hindus and Muslims applying that the questions don’t come up often enough to warrant having a policy.

    2. It would be bigoted to ask them those questions.

    3. Pretty sure these questions would disqualify Muslims too.

  8. Maybe they should a start a new Canadian sport where they put Christians out on a soccer field and then release some hungry lions, and bears, and alligators. Put it on PPV. They could do something similar with dropping them in tanks full of hungry great whites. Civilization redux.

  9. Huh, so suddenly we want laws banning adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of the parents sexuality and religious beliefs.

    I thought that was worse than Hitler.

    1. Private agency operating in line w/ parents’ expressed wishes and market pressure

      =/=

      State monopolist regulation that allows for no alternative service or competing model

    2. If you’re talking about adoption agencies that did not place children with same-sex couples:

      1. Your description is disingenuous and wrong.
      2. The gender composition of the parents is far more likely to influence the child’s interests than the parents’ abstract beliefs…and the child’s interests must be paramount.
      3. Fuck off.

      1. “The gender composition of the parents is far more likely to influence the child’s interests than the parents’ abstract beliefs”

        Which is why it is *totally random coincidence” that the likelihood of a woman wearing a full bee-keeper outfit to go shopping correlates precisely with the likelihood of her having been raised in a fundamentalist Muslim or Christian household.

        “the child’s interests must be paramount.”

        Whereas everyone else was placing them somewhere between 4th and 6th place. Thanks for setting us back on course.

        Always funny when a right(/left)-wing commenter falls right into a left(/right)-wing troll’s trap.

  10. I don’t see why this is a huge deal breaker. My dad thought homosexuality was wrong. So did his father. I grew up to be a proud bisexual, because they also thought that raising kids was the responsibility of my sex-positive mom.

    1. By the time the kids are old enough to think about romance, they can buy Our Body Ourselves or the Goofy Guide to Sex if their parent’s guidance is the wrong path for them.

    2. “I grew up to be a proud bisexual”

      pleasebeagirlpleasebeagirlpleasebeagirl

      1. How dare you assume xe is binary.

        1. {hastily rewrites}

          pleaseidentifyasagirlandhave(just)avagina
          pleaseidentifyasagirlandhave(just)avagina
          pleaseidentifyasagirlandhave(just)avagina

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.