Posted on 04/21/2005 7:46:17 AM PDT by worldclass
The Texas Legislature is considering legislation that would ban homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents. If the legislation is enacted, Texas would be the only state in the nation with such a restriction.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I think it's time to move back to Texas...
Long Live Texas
Yeah, this is great, keep the kids locked up in the system as opposed to letting them get into a home where they might actually be cared for...la
Yeah, this is great. Let's keep the kids locked up in a government system as opposed to placing them into a home where they might be given love and affection...damn those evil gays...la
Doh, double post...is there any way to edit our posts, (that I have missed)...la
The ones keeping the kids locked up in the systems are liberal administrators who rush applications through for same-sex couples but investigate for years (at great cost) adoptions by heterosexual couples.
And just think: our legislators are part-timers!
Must help 'em stay focused when they ARE in Austin.
Nowadays love and affection come secondary to political scrutiny. It's all very sad. One thing you DON'T usually have in homosexual households is spousal abuse and bickering, it's very easy to communicate with someone who is similar to you. In this way it can be an excellent environment for children but those fanatical thugs in Texas only care about symbols.
You're right on the money there: as one who has adopted, it was enormously easier for my wife and I to go through endless INS and State Department hoops (navigating the Russian bureaucracy was a walk in the park by comparison), go to Russia, travel to the "outback," go to court there, and adopt a young Russian child than it ever would have been here.
Maybe because we're white, and normal.
Just exactly the sort of horse poop you'd expect from someone who quotes the fictitious "Chief Seattle" in his FR profile.
"One thing you DON'T usually have in homosexual households is spousal abuse and bickering ...."
Research shows otherwise. Weren't the gay activists whining just recently over the fact that outlawing gay marriage would supposedly cut them off from certain legal protections against domestic violence? A person is not immune to jealousy, irritability, and incompatibility over any number of issues just because he/she is homosexual.
While I oppose Gay marriage - this issue sounds as if it was diesigned to Gay bait. I am also against Gay "couples" adopting because two straight single couples can not joint adopt - but I would not be against the adoption going to a single gay person of that couple if qualified. That is the compromise I would adopt.
The Minority Heritage Preservation Act in Minnesota prohibits White people from adopting minority children.
Thanks for your input Massachusetts. You guys are running things great up there.
Let's hear it for the fanatical thugs!
Texas, my Texas!
Isn't Texas worse off in terms of abortions and divorce and out of wedlock babies than Mass.?
Well put. A gay person whether in a relationship or not should have the same status as a single person. For some legal problems I acknowledge, I am in favor of domestic partnership law which is blind to the genders of participants and to whether their partnership is marriage-like. This would help gay couples and others to arrange next-of-kin status currently restricted to marriage.. I don't know whether or not it would be appropriate for domestic partners to have access to joint adoption. But I am adamant that the law not blur the definition of parents being a mother and a father.
At this point, it seems more of a bill to prevent to damned gay people from having "special" rights as opposed to protecting the children. I am so tired of other people judging others...seems like there are a lot of people throwing stones who shouldn't be...la
At this point, it seems more of a bill to prevent [...] damned gay people from having "special" rights as opposed to protecting the children. I am so tired of other people judging others...seems like there are a lot of people throwing stones who shouldn't be... -TheSuaveOne
I would have to examine closely the details of the amendment to make a judgement, but based on this piece, I tend to think the amendment goes too far, and it sounds unlikely to be in Texas' adoption reform law when it finally passes anyway.
That said, I am prepared to give the legislators the benefit of the doubt that their hearts are in the right place and they wish to amplify the probability that children will be adopted into traditional families, a goal I certainly agree with.
With regard to judging others, I think it is ridiculous to talk about not judging others. Of course we do, everyone does. We must judge people on their behavior. I would agree with unfounded judgements based on the color of someone's skin, for example. But there is logic to preferring married man-woman couples.
So in other words it shouldn't be done if homosexuals are going to object?
This is not governance it is demagoguery.
Demagoguery consists primarily in making unfounded accusations against the motivations of one's opponents, instead of debating the actual issues. Now guess who on this thread is doing that?
No, demagoguery is making use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
There is a little demagoguery in all politics. Despite what I wrote above about giving the benefit of the doubt, I would not be surprised if legislators were seeking to benefit from the publicity of opposing the unpopular liberal "homosexual rights" agenda.
Specifically passing a law banning "Gay couples" from adopting when just wording it as "non-married couples" would do makes me charge the law makers with demagoguery and baiting.
"That said, I am prepared to give the legislators the benefit of the doubt that their hearts are in the right place"
Yes, because of all the past examples of how politicians have done for the common good of man as opposed to doing for themselves or for the lobby that has paid them the most.
"But there is logic to preferring married man-woman couples."
Maybe to people with closed minds...la
There's no such thing as a homosexual spouse.
That is the correct preference.
Also, since Texas bans Gay marriage - how can "gay couples" adopt anyway? In all probablility this law is a redundancy but helps get the gay haters all worked up which opens wallets.
There are plenty of popular prejudices nowadays against anyone who'd say anything that could possibly put homosexuals in a bad light. It's become generally verboten.
As for "false promises", what false promises have the Texas legislators made?
Maybe to people with closed minds...la
That is not an argument. Do you similarly dismiss reasoned arguments against the current push by judges to redefine gender out of marriage? I suggest engaging the arguments.
Ok wrong terminology then
What you're saying is that you'd prefer it to say "non-married couples". But the people of Texas apparently don't. Do you make the charge of "demagoguery" whenever a legislature passes a law you disagree with, or could it simply be that it's carrying out the sober will of its constituents, and that they happen to disagree with you?
For example instead of of saying homosexual marriage is banned - just pass a law saying same sex marriage is banned.
In other words WE win when we IGNORE homos and refuse to grant them status under law (against or for them) beyond the status of individuals - like we all are individuals.
Sadly, many get invested in an us vs them battle which distracts us from good legislation.
Mistake!. I read a report a couple of months ago. Batering is more common in percentage in homosexual households. And promiscuity a whole lot more. I don't think it's a good idea for a child to see from such a tender age lovers coming in and out of the bedroom or hearing "noises".
yes there are exceptions
Those are both the same thing. Are you saying that the problem is merely with the way legislation is worded?
Anyway, I'm not sure I buy the theory that the way to fight the homosexual agenda is to just ignore them. They can't be ignored; they won't allow it. Their whole goal is to be in everybody's face. I mean, do you think their movement considered it a defeat when SCOTUS struck down that Texas law in Lawrence?
Umm, if you say so...
Really? Then there is something elusive going on in those households. It's just against common sense for communication to be more difficult between like people.
I think that having a biological kid is the only thing in this country for which you don't have to get a license or something like that. Nothing you can do about it!.
Expect some loud braying from the jackasses on the Supreme Court of this is enacted.
They are ready and willing to push judicial activism to the hilt and foster their Euroweenie legal and social agenda of homosexual "rights" and establishment of Atheism as the National "Religion".
HEY back off the Chief you! ;)
It may not be his actual words but it's a fine quote nonetheless. But what does that have to do with gay foster parents mind you?
"Then we should take children away from biological but gay parents (even "chaste" ones)and promiscuous hetero single and "swinger" parents."
And let's be sure to keep all the little boys out of those Catholic schools...la
And like I said you want the words "gay" and "gay" specific laws to use against them in some sort of proxy culture war.
My way of legislation is better because it both preserves indivisuality and individual choices - does not acknowledge gays as a group of any kind and restricts the gay agenda on top of it without giving them ammo.
We are fighting the same fight - but I am fighting smarter.
This statement isn't true, I hate to call someone a liar but you obviously have a bias towards gays. The fact of the matter is gays, and this includes lesbians, fight and bicker as much as heterosexual people. To judge by your statements queers make better parents than heteros.
This is simply not true.Some of them may make good parents but the risk to the child of being pushed into a life style contradictory to the childs natural instincts are too great to risk IMO. We don't need more mentally ill people in the world.
"I think from this Texas legislation instead of trying to solve a problem instead seeks to create a wedge issue and gay bait in order to get votes. This is not governance it is demagoguery."
Would it have been gay-baiting if 10 years ago we in the Peoples Republic of assachusetts had passed an amendment defining marriage?
I think that given the current environment and the agenda of the sodomite lobby that this is simple common sense fortifying of a position.
This is all very complicated, if that's true than the civilized community and human sexuality are far more bazaar than I have previously imagined. But then again, I haven't met alot of people. Maybe you are right.
You seem to have quite the knack for mind-reading...or so you think.
You have zero clue what I was arguing for - reading on down may help.
I think I am pretty accurate - you want specific restrictive laws mentioning gays by name. Tha is fine - I don't support the homo agenda in th eleast - I just think my approach is a better more sustainable one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.