Arkansas Judge Overturns Morality

Mountain Journal News ^ | 29 Dec 2004

[TheBattman]

This, followed by an appeal to their religious beliefs, which not everyone in the country shares.

And much in the same way you are accusing me of falling into a pattern, you too have fallen into a similar pattern with your statement.

Amazing how the left likes to push a pure democracy until the majority does not agree with them. The overwhelming majority of Americans have a real problem with homosexual's choice of lifestyle. The vast majority of voters oppose gay marriage. And here in Arkansas, the vast majority of citizens (in both political parties) oppose homosexuals being allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

In this case, instead of finding a new argument, you insult other's opinion (and believe it or not, the country is still predominantly Christian).

[TheBattman]

WRONG! DHS can make rules based upon morality. They constantly choose to remove children from homes with abusive, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. parents. They also won't (if they know about it) place children in homes with the above.

DHS does have authority to determine if a home is suitable and in the child's best interests. There are a lot of subjective factors considered.

[Dimensio]

Amazing how the left likes to push a pure democracy until the majority does not agree with them.

I don't push a "pure democracy". I'm well aware that we don't live in one.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have a real problem with homosexual's choice of lifestyle.

Yes, but then I think that the "overwhelming majority of Americans" are ignorant of homosexuals, to the point of thinking that homosexuality is some kind of "lifestyle".

Not that it matters, because we don't live in a pure democracy.

The vast majority of voters oppose gay marriage.

This isn't about same-sex marriage.

And here in Arkansas, the vast majority of citizens (in both political parties) oppose homosexuals being allowed to adopt or be foster parents.

Then I'm sure that they'll have no problem pushing through a law that will survive a court challenge. As it is, the only regulation that was in place was made by an agency that had no authority to make such a regulation. Rather than focus on that, however, everyone wants to blame the judge for rightly pointing out that fact.

In this case, instead of finding a new argument, you insult other's opinion

I'm merely pointing out that thus far no one has presented a rational argument based upon facts. I've seen appeals to "common sense" (which, while seeming sound, don't have facts backing them up and do keep in mind that "common sense" led to Aristoltilian physics), anecdotes (and I can provide anecdotes for my side of the argument also), vague assertions that all homosexuals are child molesters and assertions that children should be raised in a way consistent with a certain religion's beliefs, without any secular justification.

[Dimensio]

DHS can make rules based upon morality.

No, they can't.

they constantly choose to remove children from homes with abusive, drug addicted, alcoholic, etc. parents.

This is because it is a policy based upon protecting the children's "well-being", not some vague assertion of "morality". The DHS was given authority, by the state, to regulate based upon a child's "well being". They were not given the authority to determine suitability based upon vague assertions of "morality".

DHS does have authority to determine if a home is suitable and in the child's best interests. There are a lot of subjective factors considered.

And judge Fox found that there is no reason to assume that a household is unsuitable simply because of the presence of a homosexual within it. Because of that, he ruled that the DHS's only justification was "morality", which was overstepping their authority.

I'm sure that you think that the mere presence of a homosexual in a household will cause irreperable harm to a foster child taken in by a heterosexual couple who owns the home, but thus far I've not seen any evidence that your fears are grounded in reality.

[Dimensio]

I believe that homosexuality is a neurosis. Neurotic parents - in this case, TWO, not just one - mitigate against a child's well being. How's that?

I don't believe that homosexuality is a neurosis. My empty assertion nullifies yours, and we're back to square one.

[missanne]

Dear sir....it is not that I wouldn't like to put up a link for you...I just don't know how to find it, since this occured two years ago..the incident in Johnson, AR occured probably about the same time.

I can see you'd rather be devil's advocate for the homosexual's having foster children versus a better enviroment for the children, so I'll sign off. I agree to disagree with you. That's what makes are country special. God Bless you Happy New Year!

[TheBattman]

What a dreamer -

My point was that the majority of Americans and Arkansans do not support homosexuality IN ANY WAY. But because of leftist judges, NOTHING dealing with any real moral issue is likely to stand up in court - not because of Constitutional issues, but because judges prefer to judge from their personal political view, not from a "will of the people" and "Constitutional" perspective.

No rational argument yet in this thread against this ruling? You are kidding, right? Of course, the studies that show that stable homes with a MOTHER AND FATHER (not mother + mother, father + father, and even single parent homes) are far better in the long term for children. Of course there are always exceptions - abusive parent, drugs, etc. But as a statistic, the two parent (again, not same-sex) home is better.

But as this doesn't support your view, you will discount it - probably by asking who's study it was.

[Red Sea Swimmer]

God will overturn this "Judge" soon enough. Citizens' Arrest anyone ?

[T Wayne]

What do you have against pigs?

[TheBattman]

Yet you again are ignoring something - most people, citizens and DHS employees believe that a homosexual household is detrimental to a child's well-being. Thus it falls into the authority of DHS to make that decision.

[Dimensio]

My point was that the majority of Americans and Arkansans do not support homosexuality IN ANY WAY.

When the USSC decided Lawrence v. Texas, 60% of the US population supported the ruling. Or were you not referring to the reversal of sodomy laws?

But because of leftist judges, NOTHING dealing with any real moral issue is likely to stand up in court - not because of Constitutional issues, but because judges prefer to judge from their personal political view, not from a "will of the people" and "Constitutional" perspective.

The "will of the people" is irrelevant to the fact that the policy was a result of an agency overstepping its bounds. If the "will of the people" really wants it reinstated, then the "people" should have no trouble doing so. An incorrectly-made policy does not become valid simply because the "majority" supports it.

No rational argument yet in this thread against this ruling? You are kidding, right?

No, not kidding.

Of course, the studies that show that stable homes with a MOTHER AND FATHER (not mother + mother, father + father, and even single parent homes) are far better in the long term for children.

1) This case was about foster care, which is not the same as "long term" care.

2) I'm sure that you can cite case studies, and I an cite case studies that show that children raised by same-sex couples do no worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples (and then you'll claim bias in the studies that I cite while I claim bias in the studies that you cite). Stalemate.

But as this doesn't support your view, you will discount it - probably by asking who's study it was.

Just like you'll dismiss any study that doesn't support your point of view, right?

[Dimensio]

Yet you again are ignoring something - most people, citizens and DHS employees believe that a homosexual household is detrimental to a child's well-being.

Argument ad numerum. Logical fallacy.

The DHS tried to argue that the presence of homosexuals in a household (why are people ignoring the fact that the ban applied even to heterosexual foster parents if a homosexual just happened to live in the household at times?), which is why the plaintiffs presented evidence from psychologists who said that the DHS's claim was not true.

[af_vet_1981]

What do you have against pigs?

I suppose it would be unfair to the pigs to entrust their lives to one of such perverted judgment as this judge.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT