It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Gays Criticize Proposed Foster Parents Ban in Texas

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Hey, take it easy there.
The bible is not THAT clear on this subject, there are several interpretations and the one you talk about are lacking if you ask me.

I'm not sure I'm following you Jakko....

I wasn't addressing the thousands of interpretations there are out there on the Bible, but rather the fact that it's become the handbook for a corrupt democracy and its fanatical drooling zombie-like followers.....Upon which from your previous posts, I believe we agree on.....





posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
What I ment is the interpretation of the the "anti gay marriage/adoption" christians of the bible is lacking if you ask me.
Many people think christianity has a certain "opinion" regarding gay people, when in fact it's just some christians that mis-explain the bible to suit their own opinion.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This is not as cut and dried as it looks. Personally I'm all for gay rights, including the right to marry. This issue is different. We've got screwed up kids, then they go to school and get ridiculed because of their parents. It IS ignorance but do these kids need any more tripe thrown their way.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
No, intrepid, the kids don't need any more stuff to deal with. But doing something like this isn't going to make that ignorance go away. If anything it will just fuel it. They should try harder to make sure that any parent, gay or straight, is a good parent. I don't know, but I'd rather have a parent that took good care of me and raised me well (like I feel mine did) and get mocked at school because of them, then have a great school life but come home to a family that makes the Bundys look like the Cleavers. Denying a whole demographic the ability to adopt because "it's not natural" or because "God doesn't like it" eliminates a large portion of the population who could be much, much better parents than a lot of the heterosexual parents that are out there.

I've heard it argued that if kids have homosexual parents then that lifestyle will be forced on them and they won't be able to make the decision on their own. Isn't that what heterosexual parents do anyways? Isn't that how a lot of us raise our kids, to think that any thing other than a man and a woman is wrong? It's forced on us the same way it's argued that it would be forced on the adopted/foster child of a gay couple.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I think most gay parents are smart enough to know they're not going to be able to "train" a kid to be gay, even if they wanted to.

After all, their parents weren't able to "train" them to be straight, were they?

It just doesn't work that way...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
No Mcory, you're missing my point. I think that gay people can be excellent parents. The problem comes in is when foster kids are raised by gay parents there will be additional problems. Being a foster kid is extremely difficult to start with. Then they go to school and they get called "fag" or other references to their parents, which they probably have an affinity for, are dissed, that's additional stuff they don't need to deal with. It is not the parents, it's the ignorance of kids and you know how cruel kids can be.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I think most gay parents are smart enough to know they're not going to be able to "train" a kid to be gay, even if they wanted to.

After all, their parents weren't able to "train" them to be straight, were they?

It just doesn't work that way...

Sure it does. Gayness is not an inherited trait. As with any 'behavior,' young children are impressionable.

If people want children they should look to nature. Even if sterile, two Bulls don't raise a calf.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Sure it does. Gayness is not an inherited trait. As with any 'behavior,' young children are impressionable.

If people want children they should look to nature. Even if sterile, two Bulls don't raise a calf.


I think that is the most ignorant thing I've read on this forum.

Would you please give some info on how you got to this determination?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   


Gayness is not an inherited trait.
There are more factors in human biology than simple inheritance and "learned behavior." Prenatal environment, nutrition, chemical exposure, all kinds of things. If it's "learned behavior", where is it learned from? The whole society is geared toward raising kids straight.

The simple fact is that nobody knows what causes it. It could in fact be an inheritable recessive trait, there is some evidence that if your mother had a gay sibling, you are more likely to be gay yourself. Just because nobody has yet found a clear cut biological explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.

There are plenty of things we still don't know about how the human body and brain develop. This is one of them.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotexThere are plenty of things we still don't know about how the human body and brain develop. This is one of them.


Or there's a pantload that we are ignoring on purpose.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
i find it pathetic that those pushing the homosexual agenda would want to use already distressed kids as a call for equality.as a few people have pointed out, haveing "gay" care givers would only increase the amount of abuse that a kid would already recieve for not haveing parrents of their own. these kids already have enough problems without adding homosexual caregivers to that long list. the children MUST be first in the equasion.

some have argued that there are heteralsexual care givers that are abusive. while it is something that needs to be delt with on it's own, why do they insinuate that homosexual care givers would be imune to this type of behaveiour? that line of reasoning is compleatly empty. there would be the same problems with either homosexuals or heteralsexuals.

what about the natural parrents? will we need to stipulate upon our deaths that our children are not to be put with homosexuals? even those who have children taken away from them for various reasons should have a say in what type of parrenting their children recieve. i would think that quite a few would say no to homosexuals raiseing their kids. it would go against some peoples religious beliefs, and their religious views should be taken into acount as well. just as i would suspect that a muslem family would want their kids to stay with fellow followers of their religion. the "rights" of homosexuals should have no place in this. the children themselves are what is important here, not the "rights" of those apointed to look after them.

if homosexuals realy want to have kids perhaps they should reconsider their lifestile choices. if homosexuals were ment to raise kids they would be able to concieve their own. why should they raise children and possibly teach these kids homosexuality. personaly i think it is despicible that homosexuals feel that they should be able to raise these unfortunate kids just because their lifestyle can not create children of their own.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
.
dawnstar makes a good point,

This is probably just a tactic that distracts from the mess that foster care is in most states.

Every bigot can feel good, like their representatives are 'doing something'/'being effective', when in reality they are not addressing the real problems of finding enough loving, caring and responsible homes for so many unwanted and often troubled kids.

Injected your fix of self-righteousness for today?
.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
No Mcory, you're missing my point. I think that gay people can be excellent parents. The problem comes in is when foster kids are raised by gay parents there will be additional problems. Being a foster kid is extremely difficult to start with. Then they go to school and they get called "fag" or other references to their parents, which they probably have an affinity for, are dissed, that's additional stuff they don't need to deal with. It is not the parents, it's the ignorance of kids and you know how cruel kids can be.


Right, but where do you stop with this line of reasoning? Kids will also be teased if their parents are a racially mixed couple, so should we deny them the ability to foster children? They'll be teased if their parents are non-Christian (or non-majority-religion if Christianity isn't it), so should we make religious affiliation a requirement? They'll be teased if their parents are too rich or too poor, so only the square middle can foster kids?

The simple fact is that foster children are outsiders to the mainstream community, and some kids at school will find a way to remind them of this, and to exacerbate it, whether by picking on their parents' sexual orientation, race, religion, language, hair-color, whatever. We can't say "Well homosexual parents are more likely to have foster children who are teased, so they can't foster" without saying the exact same thing for every other instance that can result in a similar level of increased teasing.

Now, to tackle another can of worms, drogo's comment.

Let's recast drogo's argument in the terms that could have been used 50 years ago:

I find it pathetic that those pushing the miscegenistic agenda would want to use already distressed kids as a call for equality. As a few people have pointed out, having "colored" care givers would only increase the amount of abuse that a kid would already receive for not having parents of their own. these kids already have enough problems without adding miscegenistic caregivers to that long list. The children MUST be first in the equasion.

Some have argued that there are white care givers that are abusive. While it is something that needs to be delt with on it's own, why do they insinuate that miscegenistic care givers would be immune to this type of behavior? That line of reasoning is compleatly empty. There would be the same problems with either whites or coloreds.

What about the natural parents? Will we need to stipulate upon our deaths that our children are not to be put with miscegenators? Even those who have children taken away from them for various reasons should have a say in what type of parrenting their children receive. I would think that quite a few would say no to coloreds raising their kids. It would go against some peoples' religious beliefs, and their religious views should be taken into acount as well. Just as I would suspect that a muslim family would want their kids to stay with fellow followers of their religion. the "rights" of miscegenators should have no place in this. The children themselves are what is important here, not the "rights" of those apointed to look after them.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to address some of drogo's own points:


Originally posted by drogo
i find it pathetic that those pushing the homosexual agenda would want to use already distressed kids as a call for equality.


"Homosexual Agenda?" What is that again? Oh, yes, here it is


as a few people have pointed out, haveing "gay" care givers would only increase the amount of abuse that a kid would already recieve for not haveing parrents of their own. these kids already have enough problems without adding homosexual caregivers to that long list. the children MUST be first in the equasion.


Sure, but if you're going to weed out homosexual caregivers for this reason, you need to show compelling evidence why other factors that will engender teasing should not see the same prohibition. I believe I've mentioned a few of these factors in my previous posts here.


some have argued that there are heteralsexual care givers that are abusive. while it is something that needs to be delt with on it's own, why do they insinuate that homosexual care givers would be imune to this type of behaveiour?


Nobody's suggesting that there aren't bad homosexual parents out there, just that an individual's homosexuality no more predisposes them to be a bad parent than their preference for Guiness over Budweiser, or their preference for redheads over brunettes.


that line of reasoning is compleatly empty. there would be the same problems with either homosexuals or heteralsexuals.


Certainly, so why, aside from the aforementioned proclivity to being teased, should homosexual couples be denied the chance to provide a stable environment for a child in need? I mean we're not even talking about adoption here, the foster parent's aren't a permanant installation, just a safe place for the kid away from whatever other problem the child is having.


what about the natural parrents? will we need to stipulate upon our deaths that our children are not to be put with homosexuals?


If you're going to spell out who your children should go to if you meet an untimely death, then it's pretty unlikely they'll end up in the foster care system. Child Services generally tries to place the children with a family member before putting them into the foster care system.


even those who have children taken away from them for various reasons should have a say in what type of parrenting their children recieve.


I actually agree with you here. Though, I think we can both agree that this say should be subject to certain limits ("Place my little Clarissa with my friend Jimmy so she can keep starrin' in those Internet sex films she likes so much" should, obviously, be right out).


i would think that quite a few would say no to homosexuals raiseing their kids. it would go against some peoples religious beliefs, and their religious views should be taken into acount as well. just as i would suspect that a muslem family would want their kids to stay with fellow followers of their religion.


This is kind of tangential to the subject at hand, and I suspect that we agree here as well, but what are your thoughts on the groups of people who were trying to adopt/foster specifically Muslim children from the Tsunami-struck countries so they could "Christianize" them?


the "rights" of homosexuals should have no place in this. the children themselves are what is important here, not the "rights" of those apointed to look after them.


Erm, kinda. The rights of the homosexuals should be considered, but the needs of the children must be considered first.


if homosexuals realy want to have kids perhaps they should reconsider their lifestile choices. if homosexuals were ment to raise kids they would be able to concieve their own.


They can. There's absolutely no reason that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman couldn't conceive a child together. They may find the sexual act uninteresting or distasteful, but if sperm joins with egg, a zygote will result no matter the sexual orientation of the parents.

On this subject, were a gay man and woman to have a child together, and if the woman were to later give up custody of the child, would you have a problem with the man and his stable partner raising the child?


why should they raise children and possibly teach these kids homosexuality.


Most of the evidence we currently have points to sexual orientation being strongly influenced by genetic factors. That isn't to say that events growing up can't steer an individual one way or another, but that the main impetus comes from their genes. There have been no peer-reviewed studies suggesting a higher rate of homosexuality among children raised in a stable homosexual household.

If you need to know why peer reviewing is important in any academic study, check out the article on it over at Wikipedia.


personaly i think it is despicible that homosexuals feel that they should be able to raise these unfortunate kids just because their lifestyle can not create children of their own.


I think, perhaps, that you may want to re-word this a bit. Homosexuals don't think they should be able to raise kids "just because their lifestyle can not create children". They think that they should be able to help these children because they love (and not in the NAMBLA way, every gay person I know would take a gun to those folks if it were legal, and is prepared to call the police on known members the second they see illegal activity) children, and have a stable home that can support an additional member. They want to help foster children for the exact same reasons that heterosexual couples do.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
actualy whisky jack. your point is not far off. i have an aunt who has adopted 4 kids. 1 from india, 1 from korea, and 2 black girls. and guess what especialy with my black cousins there have been problems about it. they are my family and i care deeply about them. in many respects they would have been better off with families from their own races. i am not being racist about it. but their lives would have been far easyer if they had been. perhapse this is part of the reasons i feel how i do on it.

all four have had to deal with comments and abuses from other kids. sadly it is my two black cousins who have suffered the most. they are not considered "true" blacks by their peers, nor are they "whites". they have had a very hard time fitting in, add to that that they were both born with fetal alcohal syndrom, just made things worse. my aunt has also been acused of not raiseing them as "propper blacks" from black families. my uncle was even arrested for kidnapping at one point due to his being white with two black little girls. it was amazing at how long it took to prove his innocance.

it was not so hard for the other two, but they still had problems. ANY differance can make growing up harder then it needs to be. heck i am glad that they are a part of my family. but at the same time feel that their lives could have been much easyer if there was not a noticable differance in their family make up. like i said before the childrens welfare should come first. and the less abnormalities in their lives the easyer it will be on them.

one of my cousins has even been in legal truble just because she needed to "prove" that she was a black at heart. it was unfortunate but the other "black" people found it hard to accept her because her "care givers" where white and therefore she was not realy black at all. how was this fair to her? it just gave her more problems that she shouldn't have needed to go through.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
SO, we have concluded that gay parents are not the issue. BIgots and homophobes are.

So why disallow gay adoption parents? We need to concentrate on educating abusive morons who call people names. THAT is tthe issue.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
there is a movement about children right now and they need to be protected.sexuality is a choice not a right.children need a mother and father.plain and simple.children dont need to be exposed to having two fathers or mothers in love or anything else.its the anything else that is coming that will stop humans in there tracks.homophobia and all this other stuff there shouting is to confuse us.just because you have a group of people saying its ok does not mean it is.we are beings of natural laws. go against it and will be shown the door. just like everything else that has pushed it way around on this planet we live on.the forces of nature on this planet dont bend to people choices.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
there is a movement about children right now and they need to be protected.sexuality is a choice not a right.children need a mother and father.plain and simple.children dont need to be exposed to having two fathers or mothers in love or anything else.its the anything else that is coming that will stop humans in there tracks.homophobia and all this other stuff there shouting is to confuse us.just because you have a group of people saying its ok does not mean it is.we are beings of natural laws. go against it and will be shown the door. just like everything else that has pushed it way around on this planet we live on.the forces of nature on this planet dont bend to people choices.


unless, of course.....
mommy or daddy have gotten into the habit of beating the heck out of them.....or foster mommy or daddy....do a search using the keywords foster care, and murder...you'd be surprised.

or....mommy or daddy need that drink or those drugs more than the kid needs food and spends the grocery money for those things instead and the kid is starving....

or.....gee, maybe little billy has a chronic health problem, and the family's income is in that range where they cannot get any help from the gov't and well, they aren't rich!!! Then little billy may just have to live with just his unemployed mommy in order to get the healthcare that he needs....

gee, it must be nice to live in that alternate universe, where daddy always loves mommy as much as he does himself, and works hard for his paycheck and dollars stretch for miles so that check pays for their needs...
try coming over to ours, where human faults are as common as the green blades of grass in the nearby meadow!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
As a random rant, I'm going to introduce the folks arguing in favor of this bill to the "space" and to the "shift key." It makes following your point a lot easier.


Originally posted by flukemol
there is a movement about children right now and they need to be protected.


Ok, I think we're all with you so far. In fact I'd go so far as to say every Homo Sapiens Sapiens who hasn't handed in his/her "I am a person" card is with you here.


sexuality is a choice not a right.


A bit of a nonsequitor, but I understand that you're making a declaration of belief. Still, with what we can tell from science right now, an incorrect one. As I mentioned before, the preponderance of the evidence we've gathered right now shows that the single greatest influence on a person's sexual preference comes from genetics.


children need a mother and father.plain and simple.


Debatable. Children need a stable, caring environment. Historically the extended family (mom, dad, uncles, grandparents living in close proximity) was the best way to provide that. It's only in the last 150 years that the concept of "family == mom+dad+kids" really became the norm.


children dont need to be exposed to having two fathers or mothers in love or anything else.its the anything else that is coming that will stop humans in there tracks.


So would this include, for example, walls? Those are pretty good at stopping people in their tracks.


Joking aside, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the idea that humans find homoxsexuality universally and inherently disgusting.


homophobia and all this other stuff there shouting is to confuse us.


So does that come right after "Be Fabulous" in the Homosexual Agenda™?


just because you have a group of people saying its ok does not mean it is.


And just because you have a group of people saying it's not alright doesn't mean you're correct either. And just because you have a book saying "faggorts si teh ickay!" doesn't prove a thing to me, since I have my own that says they're just ducky.


we are beings of natural laws. go against it and will be shown the door.


And one of those laws you're so proud of suggests that in social animals having non-reproducing members of the community helps to promote the stability of the community as a whole.


just like everything else that has pushed it way around on this planet we live on.the forces of nature on this planet dont bend to people choices.


Right, so please stop trying to bend it to your own choice.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Being gay myself I thought I should wheigh in on this subject. Bigotry and liberalism aside I think everyone is missing the point. The problem with the passing of this law is not one of protecting our children from "devinats" as someone so eloquently put. Nor does it have to do with homosexuals using children to promote their "secret agenda".

What we have here is a lesbian couple, who for the past 80 children, were deemed perfectly capable of caring for a foster child and now they want to take away these women's right to help unwanted children ONLY because they're gay.

Try to look at this from a gay person's standpoint. What would you do if one day someone passed a law saying that you can't you can't have children, or that you can't get married, or that you can be fired, simply because you have green eyes. If any state had attempted to pass a similar law, substituting blacks for gays there would be riots.

The problem with this law lays in the fact that even in a community such as this where we try to respect even the craziest ideas we refuse to oppose an offensive legislature simply because we think "eew gay people are gross". That seems to be the prevailing feeling in the states. We will fight to the last for black rights, women's rights, illegal immigrant rights, unborn children's rights, but gay rights? "Gays are sexual deviants" "unfit to care for children" "the last thing these kids need is the traumatization of homosexual parents".

Now, having said that, I'd like to say that I believe the children's well being to be of paramount improtance. If a couple, regardless of age, race or sexual preference desires a foster child they should be considered. I think it's down right evil to say that children should be left to rot in an orphanage when there are experienced loving capable parents for them.

It's early so I'll keep this short. I'm not surprised this happened in Texas, I think the operative word here is "Duh" And as for those who think gay people are "sexual deviants" or are "going to hell" will you please grow up? What the hell are you afriad of? That maybe one day I might come along and turn you gay? In fact, I'd wager money that if you met me in the real world, you would have no idea I was gay at all. Ok, i promise I won't rant

The main reason this law should be deemed unconstitutional is because no one would stand idly by while Texas took away the rights of any other segmant of the population. I don't care what anyone thinks or what anyone says, I'm gay and I'm saying you have no more control over it than if you were black and to pass biased legislation against someone who's only crime was being born gay is unfathomably and atrociously unconstitutional and flat out un-American. The lack of morality of this article doesn't lie in who these women sleep with, it's the fact that a legislature was passed restircting the rights of a given people. Worse over, no one cares. I am appaled by some of the responses here, not because I'm gay, but for all the talk of the "NWO", the PATRIOT act and the "Bush Agenda of World Domination" people will hypocriticly applaud a legislation like this.

Deny ignorance, deny hyprocrisy, deny homophobia, grow the hell up.

p.s. On a personal note I'd like to say I wish straight people would stop debating the whole born/choice issue, if you're not going to listen to us when we give you the answer stop asking!!!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join