Reply With Quote
Foster children need love. Does it really matter if the love comes from someone who is gay? I'm sure there a many conservative religious right people who've abused their kids.
Part of the problem was a difference in religious differences, but most of it was her adherence to her own principles while not allowing me to simultaneously have my own. She completely invalidated everything I ever felt because she didn't approve - and it's not like I'm Pagan or anything. I just think that there is a great deal of corruption in the church and its members and that organized religion freaks me out a bit - it honestly depressed me how I could recite the Lord's Prayer while writing a note to someone next to me saying something completely different at the same time - that kind of automation worries me because it allows clergy members push their own agendas. I didn't think that Christianity was the only way to salvation, and for that I am STILL chastized. But really, the part that had the most detrimental effect was the fact that our lines of communication were so closed because she didn't want to listen because I was "wrong".
Foster children need love. Does it really matter if the love comes from someone who is gay? I'm sure there a many conservative religious right people who've abused their kids.
I was just ready to say this......my sister in-law is has narrow tubes and the have tried to artifically insemination but have been unsuccessful after
7-8 tries.....so if they decided to adopt they could not adopt according to the logic of Resurrected? He is saying that since they are not to his liking they should not adopt....no real logic.
So what about those who are divorced and want to adopt.....is that a suitable environment?
Single parents are suitable adopters? So you would allow a child one role model, but a child with same-sex guardians who are upstanding citizens and would actually be good role models are told no? What would you consider a good role model? Don't bring religion in on this.....just because the bible says something doesn't mean it is right......what about aetheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc...that are legal citizens.....what if they are upstanding citizens....would you allow them to adopt.....they are no christians, but are they any lesser people?....No!!!
Don't forget there is supposed to be separation of church and state
This issue hits me close to home....I know quite a bit more than many might relize.
It have heard that people don't want the government touse their taxes to "encourage this bad behavior".....so a gay person's taxes have subsidize the government and not see anything in return.
I would also like to know what gay militant he is talking about?
I hear all about these Neo-Nazis who are supposed to rise up and oppress everyone who is not pure Anglo. You want to stereotype gays as being militant, one could say whites are Neo-Nazi extremeists. You have a right to you opinion....but that statement is just wrong and uncalled for and is one of the bigger problems in this country. Someone throws out a vicious statement like that and people run blindly with it.
Not what I said.
sexual couples are not, by biological design, capable of reproduction and, therefore, are unable to become parents naturally. If nature had wanted them to be parents, we'd all be capable of asexual reproduction.
I wasn't even speaking of heterosexual couples unable to reproduce because of some physical aberration, illness, or defect. Allowing such people to adopt is helping to correct an accident of nature that caused the person to be unable to reproduce.
So are you saying that heterosexual couples incapable of reproducing is an okay "accident" of nature, but people loving someone of the same gender is not?
I heard that the show "My Two Dads" couldn't be broadcast inside Texas or pass through any cable lines that cross Texas soil.
This is all BS. I feel as a woman, that same sex parents should be able to adopt. Having gone through enough crap as a child myself, I would have rather been raised by two sexuals, who were stable, then the crazy nut cases who called themselves my parents! I think child would be happy to have a loving, stable home regardless of it being a sexual household. Having had friends who grew up in foster homes, with a heterosexual couple, they turned out as screwed up as the next person. We can't judge people based on their sexual preference. I do believe that sexuals should be allowed to adopt or have a foster child. The screening process for ALL should be better tuned.
That's right. I believe it's a choice.
What type of proof do you have that it is a choice? So you would prefer a hetero couple who happen to be poor role models because of their "choices" are better than a gay couple who happen to be upstanding citizens to adopt a child?
Don't bring religion into it....there is supposed to be a separation of church and state....so a ruling should not be based on religion.
There have been many studies to show otherwise about it being a choice.
I think maybe it's a biological thing, but there is a choice whether or not to practice.
Some people, like chicana and feminist activist Gloria Anzaldua for instance, have made that choice, but the vast majority of sexuals do not choose to be that way. Why else would scientific studies point to there being a gene as a cause for sexual tendencies? Why else would so many people live in the closet - or stay there as long as they did? It's not exactly fun coming out knowing that there are judgmental people like you in the world who think that a fundamental part of their persona is wrong.
Anzaldua had a personal agenda in mind when choosing to become a lesbian, it was to rebel, and part of her philosophical theories on Chicana and Judeo-Christian culture - but most people don't have this kind of agenda. If there is in fact a gene that causes this kind of tendency, would you have them not practice then, just because it makes you uncomfortable and doesn't fit in with your ideas of what is appropriate? What goes on in people's bedrooms is their business, not yours, and if a sexual couple can provide a better home for a child than another heterosexual one, then what's the harm in it?
Not what you said...no....but sure as implied it several times over.
You keep bringing up natural conception and basing a large part of you POV on it.
What if a man can be pregnant? So if it can be done scientifically why can't a gay couple adopt?
Here is a website:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
Put yourself in their shoes and then say that.....the suicide rat amoungst gay men is rather high...one reason being is because of narrow minded thinking like this....where they can't accept someone for being themselves. I bet you know some gay people.....do you tell them you feel this way?
No, I didn't and, if that's what you understood, my response should have clarified. I'm not opposed to heterosexual couples, based strictly on their sexual orientation, adopting...period.
You're point?
Okay, when men start naturally conceiving and carrying children, we'll talk.
Yeah, they can genetically engineer a human to grow leaves but, do you want someone who would allow science to do that to their body adopting children? The fact that a man would want to be scientifically altered in order to bear children, to me, speaks of a deeper psychological problem that -- in a normal world -- would preclude them from consideration as an adoptive parent. Nevermind the child he may or may not be able to carry to birth.Here is a website:
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
And, seeing as how scientific experimentation rarely succeeds on the first try, how many male-conceived fetuses will be sacrificed and at what months gestation before they get it right? Another moral dilemma.
No, the significant reason is that they -- like all who choose suicide -- are in psychological crisis that needs treatment...not understanding and acquiesence.
Oh, and the gay people I know [read that "with whom I associate"] think this way too. They believe the lifestyle choice they've made, by virtue of the impossibility of conception, necessarily precludes them from parenting. In fact, that was one of the allures of a gay lifestyle.
Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 04-25-2005 at 07:40 PM.
So, what you're saying is that they cannot choose whether or not to have sex?
Only genetically....but as foster parents there is a difference.....you bringing up that conception thing again.....if a hetero couple are unable to have kids when naturally of artifical ensemination can't have kids since they can't concieve?
Plus it is narrow viewpoints like yours that create the anxiety in the gay community.....if people were more open minded about social issues such as this there would be fewer social problems in the world.....I personally know of many happy well-adjusted gays that would make wonderful guardians.
So if you had to choose between an upstanding a gay couple or a hetero couple that is questionable at best you would keep the child without a family whatsoever? Even though there may not be any skeltons in the closet..other than being gay....yep let's keep the child in state care...that is a great ideayou can pay for the taxes to keep the child don't ask me to help when there are solid citizens willing and yerning to adopt and take responsibility.
Plus....I guess it never occured to you that maybe growing up with gay parents would make the child more open minded about social issues and actually benefit him/her?
Has it ever accured to you that sex isn't the only thing about a relationship between people?
As long as they show the child that they are happy and show they care deeply for the other...then what is the harm.
Actually it no one else's business if they have sex.......would you ask a hetero couple that question if they wanted to adopt?
Do you think a gay couple would have sex in front of the child just because they are gay? You seem to imply this.
It's obvious your view on sexuality largely informs your posts. Several times you've gleened positions from mine and others' posts that just aren't there.
Just to be clear. It is my position that sexuality is an abnormal behavior that is, mostly, a chosen behavior. Yes, there are some that truly believe that sexuality is a genetic manifestation - - that whole nonsense about the "gay" gene - - but, aside from assumptions such as you seem to make about the "inferences" in others' posts, there is no scientific evidence of such.
The reason I say "mostly" chosen, is because those who believe it is not a choice have, in my opinion, been conditioned by people, such as yourself, to believe they have no control over their own sexuality...that doesn't make it a natural state of sexuality.
In fact, sexuality is counter to human behavior and most theories on species survival. If sexuality were normal, then species would become extinct and this is completely anathema to nearly every theory on evolution and the perpetuation of species.
So, my belief that sexuals should not be parents is rooted in my belief that sexuals have psychological issues of a nature and degree that children should not be exposed. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have sex in front of children.
As for people who, by accidents of nature, are unable to conceive but - if not for the aberration of nature - would be able to conceive; that is the exact opposite of my argument against sexual parenting.
If we're talking about evolution/survival of species, I submit this question:In fact, sexuality is counter to human behavior and most theories on species survival. If sexuality were normal, then species would become extinct and this is completely anathema to nearly every theory on evolution and the perpetuation of species.
Could sexuality be Nature's way of controlling overpopulation?
I would be interested to see if any studies have been done to test sexual tendencies among animals born into crowded environments/habitats.
Possibly.
Only if it includes a finding on the incidence of sexual animals fostering heterosexual offspring.
I met a lot of gay people in the military (ha ha). You know what they all told me? sexuals and heterosexuals are the same. We all want to live the same kind of life, do the same things.. the only difference is sexual preference. If I go by what they told me (heaven forbid I should have listened or something), then that is the only issue dividing us. Therefore, if heterosexuals can abstain from sex (don't tell me none of them do), so can sexuals.
Let's be honest (although I know people hate doing that sometimes). sexual men do commit acts of child molestation more often than straight men. There's no way you can sugar-coat or PC that up to make it not true. Go ahead and tell me anything you want about how the numbers do not support that - then consider the fact than the percentage of sexuals in this country is that much lower than heterosexuals, and you'll see the difference.
Don't bother arguing for the children. Nobody seems to believe they should be protected and kept innocent anymore.
Have you bothered to ask the children what they think?
Kind of on the same subject...
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...6MARRIAGE.html
House approves gay-marriage ban
Proposed cons utional amendment still needs Senate, voter approval.
By Mic e M. Martinez
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
> Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Efforts to add a ban on gay marriage to the state cons ution advanced Monday when the Texas House of Representatives approved the measure with a necessary two-thirds vote.
Critics were particularly concerned about an amendment to the resolution that they say would ban gay and straight couples from civil unions.
In Texas, same-sex marriages are forbidden, and civil unions are not recognized.
The 101 members who voted in favor of the resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, would let Texas voters decide whether the cons ution should be amended to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
"The Texas Legislature continues to push policies that hurt real Texas families by denying children of placement in loving homes and by closing the door on loving, committed couples from the ability to care for one another and their family," said Heath Riddles, communications director for the Lesbian-Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.
Riddles was referring to a House amendment that was tacked on to a Child Protective Services reform bill last week. That amendment, by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, would ban gays and lesbians from being foster parents.
The bill voted on Monday must be approved one more time before it can clear the House and go to the Senate, where it will need approval from two-thirds of the senators to pass. It then would need to be approved by voters.
In 2003, lawmakers made marriage between two people of the same sex and civil unions void in Texas. That measure included a provision that the state would not recognize such unions. When the Legislature passed the bill, also known as the Defense of Marriage Act, state law already prohibited issuing marriage licenses to people of the same sex.
The bill approved Monday would take the issue a step further by amending the cons ution — if voters approve. If the Senate agrees, the measure would be put on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Chisum said the move to put the language in the cons ution would help should a legal challenge to the marriage act arise.
"I think it's something that's going around in the different areas, and we can prevent all of that by putting this into the cons ution, by placing that question in front of the people of the state," Chisum said.
Fifteen states have cons utional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and voters in three others have yet to decide.
Some lawmakers questioned Chisum's motive for wanting to amend the cons ution and accused him of playing politics.
"I want the body to clearly understand here that we are not doing anymore with this amendment than what exists now in the state of Texas," Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, said before abstaining from the vote. "We are making a political statement just for the point of making the statement."
Lawmakers were particularly concerned about the amendment that says the state or a political subdivision of the state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. The proposal would ban civil unions in the state, but there was some confusion as to the effects it would have on common-law marriages. Chisum assured lawmakers it would not affect such marriages.
Kelly Shackelford, president of the Free Market Foundation, agreed. He said the amendment was meant to prevent a situation such as the one in California, where the legislature passed a cons utional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman and then created domestic partnerships — not considered marriages — for same-sex couples.
"The other side has been very ingenious in trying to do end runs around the people's wishes," said Shackelford, whose Plano organization pushes for less government, lower taxes and "solid family values."
Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, said the measure limits the rights of all unmarried Texans and is a diversion from the real issues facing families.
"It will do nothing to lower property taxes, fully fund our public schools, provide health insurance for children of the working poor and protect abused and neglected kids," she said in a prepared statement. "Shameful votes like this one . . . are designed simply to play politics at the expense of a vulnerable minority in our state."
[email protected]; 445-3633
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions