Arkansas Pass Gay Adoption Ban

Originally posted by skeptic1
Homosexuality is not abnormal; it occurs throughout nature in all kinds of animals....naturally. So, it occurs in humans naturally, too.

Homosexual acts may occur in nature by animals, but what separates humans from animals is our ability to be aware of our actions, to contemplate them and determine if an action is acceptable/unacceptable.

That isn't even the issue, though. The issue is denying rights to people who want children on the basis of their marital status (this initiative, specifically). The issue is denying rights to children who are unwanted by legislating who and what constitutes "proper" parents.

If this were an issue of adoption rights based solely on marital status, I would disagree with it. While I think a two parent hetero home is the best environment for a child, single parents can be excellent parents. If the restriction were on homosexual adoption, single or otherwise, I would agree with it.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Honestly, how does it effect you? ... I can understand that the fear of "indoctrinting the children" is a very real one, but please think of them... what is worse, to have them "indoctrinated" into a view that is different than your own, or to shuffle them around "the system" for years, starving them of love and stability?

This is how it affects me. If society grows increasingly indoctrinated into accepting that behavior, then it makes raising my children in my belief system. It begins causing problems within my family if my child ends up best friends with a child of a homosexual couple. Then I am fighting for my child's beliefs. Does he believe his father who he loves and raised him or his friend who he has fun with is a good companion? Our society has grown increasingly centered around sex and sexual behavior.

Indoctrination vs limbo in the system. I have to say indoctrination. Indoc changes the social structure of society and civilization. The other, just increases the tax burden on people and the personal care of the individual child. Which is why I think that adoption to hetero couples and single heterosexuals should be easier.

Edit: Birth control and sex ed classes vary by state. Some encourage it, in some it is practically outlawed. Then there is the problem of doctors and pharmacists refusing to write or fill brith control prescriptions, even when that should be the patient's right.

On the classes, then it should be made available. As for the doctors and pharmacist, if they are refusing to write or fill a prescription, can't they just go to another who will? Doctors and pharmacist who are self employed can run their business based on their own ethical practices, so long as it doesn't interfere with the 'do no harm' philosophy of medicine.

This year was very bad for gay rights. I'm already gearing up to protest with some friends. We are focusing on the marriage bans first though.

reply to post by Wolf321


That is just it, though. Even though this initiative was put on the ballot to ban gay adoption, it also bans adoption for unmarried straight couples and unmarried single people. That is what the people in Arkansas voted on and for.

Hence, why I said it is about denying rights based on marital status. You can have your feelings and opinions on homosexuality and that is all fine and good. But, to say that what separates us from the animals is the ability to control our "baser animal instincts" is totally contradicted by the adultry rates, the prostitution rates, the crime rates, the divorce rates, etc.

Maybe the establishment of more stable, loving, family-oriented homes would up-lift society and make it a little better. Mommy and Daddy and 2.5 kids and the family dog don't make the perfect family. A stable environment with loving people who only want the best for the other members makes up a family.

I feel sad for the people that don't understand that and want to deny it to specific adults and a ton of unwanted children.

Originally posted by Ign0rant
Now to the idea that children living with homosexual parents will to become homosexual. This really hasn't been proven false or true by any factual study so that statement is just a baseless claim. From a logical standpoint, you should worry about the media and government poisoning the minds of the younger generation before placing any blame on the homosexual population. Not everyone is perfect, sure homosexuals may be bad parents but what about the heterosexuals that beat or sexually abuse their children what example are they setting?

I never suggested that children of a homosexual couple will likely become homosexual themselves. I said that they would be raised to accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable.

Again, just because there are bad heterosexual parents is not a reason to approve of potential 'good' homosexual couples.

Originally posted by skeptic1
As for social decay....us straight folks haven't done much to uphold the moral integrity of society: adultry, divorce, abuse, child molestation, prostitution, gambling, murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc., etc.

You think allowing a loving, same-sex couple to adopt unwanted children is going to bring our society lower than we have already allowed it to become? It just might up-lift it some.

Here is a flaw in your logic. You are lumping behaviors into groups to fit the purpose of your argument. A homosexual couple can offer all the same negative aspects you equated to 'straight folks.'

I don't approve of those things in either sexual orientation. As such they should not come to the point that we accept those as normal or acceptable either.

Originally posted by skeptic1
But, to say that what separates us from the animals is the ability to control our "baser animal instincts" is totally contradicted by the adultry rates, the prostitution rates, the crime rates, the divorce rates, etc.

It is not contradictory at all. Humans DO have the ability to control out baser human instincts. Just because one chooses to follow them does not negate the choice they had and ability to think through the situation.

If the band also includes single heterosexuals, then I would be in favor of an amendment to rectify that.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Wolf321]

This is the first I had heard of the Arkansas bill, but I followed Prop 8. I knew it was going to pass.

As most people who have shared a similar thread with me know, I am a straight male, and a Christian. I find the very thought of homosexual activity, in a word, 'disgusting'. I also try desperately not to judge others on moral grounds. I am a firm believer that my personal feelings should have no effect on someone else's choice of how to handle their life... bedroom activity definitely included. Therefore, while I do not care to engage in, think about, witness, or in any other way participate in homosexual activity, that is no reason to deny someone else the ability to do so. In short, whatever cranks your tractor is fine by me, as long as I don't have to watch.

However, I don't see either this bill or California's Prop 8 as being primarily a vote on the gay lifestyle. Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. It was passed in a reaction to a single judge striking down the will of the people after they voted in a restriction on gay marriage 2 years ago. Whether or not the judge was right or wrong in that decision is irrelevant to my position. No minority is going to achieve a social victory as long as they continually attempt to force their morality on the majority.

We tried that once, with slavery. It resulted in the bloodiest episode in the country's history, and racism still exists in small pockets even today. More Americans died in a single battle in the Civil War than have died total in the Iraqi/Afghani wars. Nothing of significance was accomplished, other than honoring of war criminals, horrendous treatment of the freed slaves, and bitter hatred for generations between two halves of this country.

You'd think after over a century, we would have learned something.

Prop 8 is a backlash that anyone looking at history could have foreseen. This bill is another chance to decide whether or not there will be another backlash. Is it a 'good' bill? I really don't know. But no doubt someone will take this before a judge and have it thrown out as well, and there will be another backlash. Almost every poster here is desperately beating their heads against a brick wall, trying to burst through, rather than walking a few steps down and opening the door.

That door is public acceptance. No one is being told who they can or cannot live with. No one is being told who they can or cannot have relations with. The only thing that is being done is a refusal to legitimize those relations. Should time show that homosexual couples are just as capable of honoring the traditions of marriage, public opinion will sway to allow such, and the fight will be won. Should homosexual couples show they are as capable of rearing a child as anyone else, the public will also accept that. What the public will not accept is being told "I'm right, you're stupid, and I want to do what I want to do, and I want it NOW! And if you don't agree, I'll make you agree!" I won't accept that; you can say it all you want, in any way you want, but the bottom line is, I am not the one looking for a change in laws; you are. I need do nothing to keep the laws the way they are; you must do what is required to change them. You have the burden of proof, not me.

If the homosexuals in the USA will simply stop with the shock therapy, stop parading down Main Street in cross-dress underwear, stop trying to scare little kids, stop trying to force kindergarten children to support your cause, stop those who have this one trait in common with you from showing what scum they (and by loose association, you) are by being a pedo, then public opinion will change. Until that happens, you will not change a thing.

I am truly amazed that so many people apparently have never had an eco/demo course in school, and have no concept of how the democratic process works. On second thought, maybe they were given the classes, but just can't learn. So many people seem unable to learn from history...

TheRedneck

reply to post by Wolf321


It banned adoption to "all unmarried couples".

This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.

Source

Denial of rights based on marital status.

[edit on 11/5/2008 by skeptic1]

reply to post by Wolf321

Again, just because there are bad heterosexual parents is not a reason to approve of potential 'good' homosexual couples.

That's right but a point can also be made saying that since their are bad heterosexual parents shouldn't be be opening the door for a variance of people willing to adopt? Instead of restricting the options that these young ones have we should be expanding it. These children wouldn't be forced into homes if they feel like "homosexuality" would be an issue. Hopefully the kids would be old enough understand the aspect of it and make their own decision regarding the couple that wants to adopt them. Yet in Arkansas the children aren't given that choice. You say that being brought up in a household with a homosexual couple would cause them to accept it more. I cannot disagree with you on that, but these kids even though will normalize the idea of homosexuality, need love and kindness and do not deserve to be imprisoned in some third rate orphanage or passed on to various foster homes like some toy. Why is it that normalization of homosexuality is seen as something negative. It would only effect the children that have been brought up in that household. It wouldn't effect your children if you explained to them your beliefs.
Is it wrong to teach your kids that all human beings no matter what race, gender or sexuality are equal?

While I respect your decision and the decisions of the people of Arkansas those children shouldn't have to suffer because of the fact that the people of Arkansas are scared that their ideology of what is normal being tainted.

-Ign0ranT

Just a note:

Source

According to Arkansas Statute - Who Can Adopt? Any single adult; husband and wife jointly, even if one or both are minors; and the unmarried father or mother of the adoptee can adopt. A married person, without the other spouse joining, can adopt if the adoptive parent is the stepparent and the other spouse consents, the spouses are legally separated, or the court has excused the spouse from consenting to the adoption.

So, it is fine to adopt if you are gay and single. But, you cannot adopt if you are gay and married (or living with your partner) or straight and unmarried (but living with your partner).

That makes a lot of sense.....

Originally posted by Ign0rant
Instead of restricting the options that these young ones have we should be expanding it.

I agree, but not through allowing homosexual adoption.

These children wouldn't be forced into homes if they feel like "homosexuality" would be an issue. Hopefully the kids would be old enough understand the aspect of it and make their own decision regarding the couple that wants to adopt them.

I don't think any child understands the homosexual debate. Many adults have a hard time understanding the various angles of argument, so expecting any child would even be close to understanding that is unrealistic. A child who has been orphaned is most likely willing to accept anyone.

Is it wrong to teach your kids that all human beings no matter what race, gender or sexuality are equal?

I don't think sexuality is a mater of equality. I think, that while one may have a sexual inclination or preference to the same gender or other sexual preference, to act on that is a choice. Unlike gender or race, it is something that you cannot change. You may not be able to change your preference/inclination, you can change you action. Example, a priest may have sexual desires, but chooses to remain celibate.

Thank you for the civil discussion. Many times, this topic draws out emotions and name calling, without an attempt to understand differences and in the end, if no agreement is reached, at least we can agree to disagree.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Wolf321]

Originally posted by Wolf321Thank you for the civil discussion. Many times, this topic draws out emotions and name calling, without an attempt to understand differences and in the end, if no agreement is reached, at least we can agree to disagree.

I find it ironic that you can be so politely hateful.

"understand differences" is exactly what you need to do. People are different, and just because you think something is strange or gross doesn't mean that it is not moral or natural.

I just don't understand how in 2008 we can still be making the same old mistakes.

This is Jim Crow laws all over again. Laws that specifically disenfranchise a specific group of people.

How many civil rights movements will there be?

Originally posted by Jezus
"understand differences" is exactly what you need to do.

I do understand the pro-homosexual, pro-homosexual adoption argument. They want their lifestyle to be accepted. I just completely disagree with it. I do have a belief that a person should be able to declare a benefactor for mutual support and to speak on their behalf. But that is for anyone, not just 'couples.' That is another topic though.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Wolf321]

This is how it affects me. If society grows increasingly indoctrinated into accepting that behavior, then it makes raising my children in my belief system. It begins causing problems within my family if my child ends up best friends with a child of a homosexual couple. Then I am fighting for my child's beliefs. Does he believe his father who he loves and raised him or his friend who he has fun with is a good companion? Our society has grown increasingly centered around sex and sexual behavior.

Wolf you have another thing coming to you if you think you can force your children how and what to beleive.

They are young now I presume and you can give them a good moral foundation as you see fit, but ultimately they will base their beleifs of fof their own life experiences.

reply to post by asmeone2


Your absolutely right. I cannot force them, but I should not have society stuffing its increasingly corrupted version of acceptability down their throats.

reply to post by Wolf321


The scrutiny to adopt a child is intense. So, you are not only defining what should be "normal" and "abnormal" for all of us, you are also saying that committed and loving families must pass through a Pat Robertson scanner? I am bisexual, I also like to have sex with booty-socks on, I guess I will never be eligible to care for a child of my own. Do you recommend that I be stoned to death? Or should I just be marginalized from the pursuit of happiness in America for the rest of my days?

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
I also like to have sex with booty-socks on,

I don't know what that is, but is sounds hot.

Do you recommend that I be stoned to death?

in my best monotone and sarcastic voice: Yes, that is what I am recommending for all homo and bisexual people.

Come on, if you don't at least understand my argument by now, you never will. Thanks for playing.

reply to post by Wolf321


heavens no! your children being friends with gays?! we can't let that happen! we better make sure we keep the seperate fountains and the back of the bus rule goin so that won't happen!...oh wait, that was another group of people wasn't it?

it's funny how their "abnormality" is compared to criminal behavior. hell i can't remember the last time a homosexual walked by and stole my heterosexuality away from me, but that time it did happen i was pissed because there was no justice for me!

what we're seeing here is, as long as you're polite you can be as intolerant of a people who haven't done anything criminal as you want. where are the studies done by independent firms that show that homosexuality degrades society? or that it's comparable to criminal activity?

it's not skin anymore, now it's if you like penis when you already have one, or vagina when you have one. well maybe i'll make a lot of money by installing some gays only stuff around town...


this ban in arkansas is complicated enough so that none of the gay population there can make a case for them being discriminated against. but then again it's a state's right to legislate this way. those who wish to avoid this law may simply move to a state that more accurately reflects their belief system. and while i don't agree with this ban, this is the way our country is supposed to work, states legislate according to their people and the government stays out of it. if this was a nationwide thing i'd be irate.

Originally posted by Wolf321They want their lifestyle to be accepted. I just completely disagree with it.

They want the same rights we all have.

And what does you disagreeing with what they do have anything to do with this?

What do your religious beliefs have anything to do with the logistics of an adoption?

The point is simple, kids who need homes, they have loving homes to supply.

The fact that you think fags are gross shouldn't come into play, why should the children suffer for your prejudices?

reply to post by Wolf321


Ahem, your argument is knowing what abby-normal is. Love isn't quantifiable. Sure, Dick Cheney must love feasting on small babies, but most of us would agree that is just gross. You check yo head! It looks plastic anyway. (I love you despite disagreeing with you...in other words, I am attacking the message and not the messenger.)