Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Social Services
State Board of Social Services
Minimum Standards for Licensed Private Child-Placing Agencies [22 VAC 40 ‑ 131]
Action Adopt new standards for licensed private child-placing agencies.
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 4/1/2011
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
4/1/11  11:07 pm
Commenter: Thomas JC

Unjust and Cruel to Force People to Allow Same-Sex Pairs to Adopt Children

Proposed Code 22VAC40-131-170 is contrary to the Virginia Constitution, the Law of Nature, and right reason; and it is unjust to children and to religious organizations. It should be REJECTED.

The Virginia Constitution rightly recognizes only marriage between a man and a woman. Since one of the intrinsic purposes of marriage is the procreation, training, and education of children, it is inconsistent with the Constitution to force adoption agencies to allow same-sex pairs to adopt children.

According to the Law of Nature, human beings are male and female, with a complimentarity that is both physical and social. Same-sex relations are contrary to the Law of Nature, and as such they present a very unhealthy situation for all involved. The life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy is more than 20 years less than those who don’t. It is cruel to subject children to such an unhealthy example.

Further, it is unjust to deny children their right to have a father and a mother. To claim that either a father isn't needed or a mother isn't needed is discrimination against men in the former and against women in the latter. And, it is contrary to right reason and reality itself. Every child needs a father and a mother. In those tragic situations where a child loses either a father or mother (whether to death, divorce, or some other hardship), the child suffers greatly. If a parent sadly dies, of course, that cannot be helped, but the child still certainly suffers nonetheless. But to willfully place the child in the care of two men or two women, and thus deny him or her any possibility of having both a mom and a dad is cruel.

One more thing: The term “sexual orientation” itself is an implicit denial of reality--specifically, the reality of *free will* in human beings, whereby we are able to freely choose what behavior we are going to engage in. The relevant issue is not so-called "orientation," but BEHAVIOR.  There is good behavior and bad behavior, and sodomy is VERY bad behavior. A child should never be knowingly placed into a home where such grave evil is the norm.

Finally, this proposed law discriminates against persons and organizations on the basis of their religion, for many religions forbid same-sex relations, and they must not be coerced into breaking their religious tenets.

For these and many more reasons, this proposed law should be REJECTED. 

Thank you.

CommentID: 17352