PDA

View Full Version : TX House bans gay foster parents


Mavdog
04-20-2005, 07:04 AM
...and in a related amendment, the House also bans left handed drivers from operating motor vehicles, and blonde women from attending any state funded universities.
ridiculous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House OKs CPS bill, bans gay foster care
GOP lawmaker tacks on measure late; joint talks with Senate ahead


10:39 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 19, 2005

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN The Texas House approved a sweeping overhaul of protective services for children and adults Tuesday, including a last-minute amendment that would ban gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving as foster parents.

The amendment, tacked on by Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, was deemed "unworkable" by Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, sponsor of the overall House bill. But Ms. Hupp voted with the majority as the amendment was approved, 81-58.

Later, the amended overhaul of protective services passed, 126-16, setting up a battle with the Senate over how much of the system should be turned over to charities and for-profit businesses.

The House supports sweeping privatization; the Senate has passed a more moderate approach. They're expected to negotiate their differences in conference committee, where Mr. Talton's measure could get scrapped.

Ms. Hupp said though "I agree with the philosophy" of the Talton amendment, it is one of the main reasons that the Senate probably won't accept the House version, forcing a conference committee to be named. She said she's not sure what conferees would do with the provision.

Rep. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, a co-author of the bill who is likely to be named to the conference committee, said he's not sure if the gay foster ban would survive.

"I would hope the Senate will have a little more sense ... and be a little bit more sensitive," he said.

The ban on gay foster parents, which Mr. Talton had previously failed to push past House committees, came late and unexpectedly.

Mr. Talton convinced his colleagues that all current and prospective foster parents be required to declare their sexuality. Those who declare themselves or are later found to be gay, lesbian or bisexual would be disqualified.

"It is learned behavior," Mr. Talton said of homosexuality.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said he had no choice but to allow a vote on Mr. Talton's amendment.

"We looked and it ... and ruled it was germane" to the bill, he said. "That's just the way the process works."

The amendment brought swift objection from Kathy Miller, president of the progressive Texas Freedom Network.

"The House today put personal and political biases ahead of the interests of children who have been abused and neglected," Ms. Miller said, adding that the measure would "further strain a foster system that is already overburdened, forcing more children into institutions rather than safe, loving homes."

"Texas children who most need the state's protection have been cast aside in favor of a narrow, mean-spirited agenda."

Arkansas is the only state to have attempted to ban gay foster parents. The state imposed its prohibition in 1999 as a regulation, but it was struck down by a state judge last December.

Several states, including Florida, Utah and Mississippi, restrict gay adoptions in various ways.

Before Mr. Talton's amendment, privatization was expected to be the biggest talker in Ms. Hupp's protective services bill.

Ms. Hupp said Child Protective Services and its sister agency, Adult Protective Services, are failing in their missions. Investigations by the state and media organizations, including The Dallas Morning News , have supported her view.

"The system is broken and we together must fix it," she said.

Ms. Hupp said "the Senate's plan did not go far enough" in outsourcing CPS' foster care duties to private firms but promised: "The House will go far enough."

Neither chamber would bring Texas' spending at CPS and APS up to par by outside standards, though current high caseloads would shrink by about 40 percent by 2007.

Gov. Rick Perry declared overhaul of the two divisions an emergency topic this session after repeated reports that overworked, poorly trained workers failed to remove children from abusive families and the frail elderly from squalid, vermin-infested homes.

Like the Senate version passed March 3, the House bill would require closer coordination between CPS and law enforcement, better training at both agencies and an updated questionnaire to determine whether elderly Texans are competent to live independently. Malicious false reports of child abuse would bring felony punishment of up to two years in jail.

But the two chambers part ways over case management, in which a state CPS worker now manages therapies, works with a child's family and helps with a court case.

The Senate would create a pilot program in one region to test privately-run case management. The House specifies a timetable for complete statewide privatization over six years.

Also, under the House bill, private businesses could be hired to be the "independent administrator" for various regions of the state, deciding placements and managing other private service providers.

kingrex
04-20-2005, 11:48 AM
I wonder if these senators/representatives are willing to serve as foster parents to replace any potential foster parents (who hapeen to be gay)?

If they want to help these poor foster kids by providing them a home, I say let them.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 04:02 PM
Hmm...they may have something to do with the budget?

Also not sure they are keeping them from getting a home, just not condoning homosexuality.

kingrex
04-20-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Hmm...they may have something to do with the budget?

Also not sure they are keeping them from getting a home, just not condoning homosexuality.

I understand that, but don't you agree that more foster parents equates to more foster homes to place these kids in?

Perhaps it's a bit of an oversimplification, but maybe you have a better grasp of the issue than I.

Usually Lurkin
04-20-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by: kingrex

I understand that, but don't you agree that more foster parents equates to more foster homes to place these kids in?.

yeah, but what level of risk is acceptable? It would be a bad idea to open up every existing home to foster kids.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Originally posted by: kingrex

I understand that, but don't you agree that more foster parents equates to more foster homes to place these kids in?.

yeah, but what level of risk is acceptable? It would be a bad idea to open up every existing home to foster kids.


Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to let any foster children be raised by a bigoted legislator like Talton.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 04:54 PM
See what I mean... Mavskiki is prejudiced against bigots, he wouldn't want to have a child raised in a home with a bigot, others don't feel that a child should be raised in a home with a homosexual.

kingrex
04-20-2005, 05:03 PM
I suppose it depends on how one sees homosexuality, as a choice or as a state of being.

If a person equates bigotry as akin to homosexuality, then I can see the logic of your contention.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
See what I mean... Mavskiki is prejudiced against bigots, he wouldn't want to have a child raised in a home with a bigot, others don't feel that a child should be raised in a home with a homosexual.

You have nothing against bigots, Dude? Just live and let live?

Would you like to articulate a defense of bigots and bigotry here?

Technically, you're right I guess. Bigoted speech does enjoy some constitutional protections. But Talton has crossed the line from speech to action, and in so doing has brough shame upon the Texas House. Based on his actions and the type of anti-social values with which he would likely infect a foster child, I would not find him suitable as a foster parent.

In the same way that other more reasonable people would find skinheads, or White supremacist groups, or anti-Semites, or proponents of genocide, or rapists, or drug dealers, or pimps unsuitable for foster parenting.

Let the water rise to its level.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: dude1394
See what I mean... Mavskiki is prejudiced against bigots, he wouldn't want to have a child raised in a home with a bigot, others don't feel that a child should be raised in a home with a homosexual.

You have nothing against bigots, Dude? Just live and let live?

Would you like to articulate a defense of bigots and bigotry here?

Technically, you're right I guess. Bigoted speech does enjoy some constitutional protections. But Taltpn has clearly crossed the line from speech to action. Based on his actions and the type of values he would likely impose on a foster child, I would not find him suitable as a foster parent.

Let the water rise to its level.


No, I don't like "bigots" perse. But if someone who doesn't feel that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle (and especially a lifestyle to be celebrated and condoned) is a bigot, then I think your definition is too broad. I don't support someone who is against women or against a person of another race or rednecks or yokels etc. But there are mores to society that some people are against that seem quite justified (nambla, pedophilia, beastiality, polygamy, incest, even homosexuality). Just because you do not feel that homosexuality is one, doesn't make those who do bigots, except in your opinion.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 06:25 PM
In the same way that other more reasonable people would find skinheads, or White supremacist groups, or anti-Semites, or proponents of genocide, or rapists, or drug dealers, or pimps unsuitable for foster parenting.

Well rapists, drug-dealers, pimps don't seem suitable either. White supremacist groups or anti-semites, blacks who hate whites, mexicans who hate blacks and others probably shouldn't be foster parents either if it's blatant and provable.

It's the states responsibility to screen and determine who should be foster parents and all of those may knock them out and if the state decides to legislate that, it's certainly within their purview and I would probably agree with them.

Some people would probaby feel that a strict jehovah's witness shouldn't be a foster parent either, not so sure there would be that much of an outrage however.

But we aren't talking about someone being bared from being a foster parent because of their free-speech or some other constitutional right, but the "right" of the populace to determine what is/is not acceptable behaviour.

I would imagine that a prostitute would also have a tough time becoming a foster parent as well.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 06:30 PM
For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.


Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.


Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.


The bigotry question aside, if your rationale is to say that anyone who purports to defend Cause A is representative of EVERYONE who defends Cause A, and that by extension Cause A and its defenders can be discredited by the actions of anyone who defends it, I would find your logic indefensible.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 06:48 PM
Whew, lot's of cause A's in there and I don't really understand what you are saying.
EDIT: After thinking some more about it, I think I do understand what you were saying, but it wasn't my point with the example,just that there are activities that just because some people think is okay, doesn't mean it is. And the people that do not agree are not necessarily "bigots".

The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

mavsman55
04-20-2005, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
For example here is a statement on the Nambla web-page.


Man/Boy Love and the Gay Movement

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad

If I don't believe that boy-lovers should be able to be foster home parents am I a bigot? This man says I am, in 20 years will main-stream culture also say so? He also says someone is a bigot who doesn't believe that homosexuals should be foster parents.

You were on the NAMBLA web page? Ha! What were you doing there man?

dude1394
04-20-2005, 06:52 PM
Well only for about 20 seconds, I think I'm still okay. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 07:33 PM
The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".


Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.

What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.

Drbio
04-20-2005, 08:07 PM
You know the sad thing about all this? Noone ever asks the kid if he/she would be agreeable to living in a homosexual environment. Of course the infants have no say, but what about those kids who do? I'd wager that the VAST majority would say no.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
You know the sad thing about all this? Noone ever asks the kid if he/she would be agreeable to living in a homosexual environment. Of course the infants have no say, but what about those kids who do? I'd wager that the VAST majority would say no.

I'd wager that the vast majority of parentless children have such a limited notion of sexuality and what is and isn't "normal", that it wouldn't calculate into their desire to be taken care of and loved.

I'd be interested to know how many children raised by homosexual parents (foster or otherwise) have asked to be taken OUT of those homes. My guess is that the incidence is virtually zero.

OTOH, there are at least a few documented and well-publicized cases of children divorcing heterosexual (and biological) parents, and countless cases of children's being removed from homes headed by unfit heterosexual parents.

Those really aren't comparisons that work in favor of Talbot's brand of bigotry.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".

This is what I don't get. It is not "normal" in the sense that it is not genetically or biologically "normal". Is this not true? Is it your contention that there is no biological element to sex? I don't know if it is "normal" mentally or not. The mainstream culture (but not the majority of the citizens) seems to have decided that homosexuality is as normal and unavoidable as baldness. I am not convinced of this fact. I understand people being attracted to the same sex as I understand people being attracted to S&M and other sexual practices, but imo, that is not necessarily normal.


Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.[/quote]

Hmmm... I don't remember recounting my "first-hand" familiarity of homosexuality. I've never engaged in it, what constitutes first-hand familiarity? I do not have personal homosexual friends, I have worked with homosexuals and not felt either threatened or bothered by it. But to be honest they were discreet people, much like most people are discreet about their sex lives.

I understand that you feel I have an obstinate, intolerent, irrational attitude towards homosexuality, but the only way I can NOT have this attitude in your opinion would be if I unequivically accept all homosexuality as just as normal as red hair. Your attitude quite frankly does not allow another opinion, it's your way or the bigot way. Any restrictions on homosexual behaviour in your opinion is bigoted, period.

Well here is pretty much my attitude towards homosexuality.
- Should a homosexual be refused a job, housing, etc. No, I dont' think so and I wouldn't do so. But should a person on the other hand be forced by law to rent a room to a homosexual if they were disturbed by it, No, I don't think so either.
- Should I have a class in school teaching how homosexuals are normal and mainstream. No, I do not think so.
- Should someone who believes that homsexuality be wrong be forced to allow their children to be in a situation where they feel their child can be influenced by that homosexual. No
- Do I really care if someone is homosexual. No. I have worked with, hired and fired colleagues who were homosexual. I really don't care personally, but I'm an adult.
- But I do not consider it a normal act, nor a normal lifestyle. I certainly do not see my sexuality as a protected constitutional right.

Is it sad that a person who is homosexual does not enjoy the open-ness and acceptance of all of our society. Yes it is sad, but as their lifestyle is pretty much on the fringe of society, then I don't see that changing, nor necessarily should society accept homosexuality as the norm just for accomodation.


What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.

What I oppose (fear?) is that an impressionable person (a child in this case) will be unduly infuenced and confused about their sexuality because they are living in a family that is (imo) also confused about their sexuality, thereby causing them distress in the future. I also oppose (fear?) society making the homosexual lifestyle seem to be normal, cool, something to do... I have the same issue with society making rap, sex, drugs normal, cool and something to do.

I do not equate homosexuality with religion, politics. You do I imagine. I equate homosexuality as an out of the mainstream lifestyle.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 08:52 PM
This is what I don't get. It is not "normal" in the sense that it is not genetically or biologically "normal". Is this not true? Is it your contention that there is no biological element to sex? I don't know if it is "normal" mentally or not.

You'd have to frame your questions at least a little more precisely. I wouldn't want to define your arguments for you.

Start with what your understanding of the term "normal" is. Then follow up with what you mean by "biological element".

dude1394
04-20-2005, 08:58 PM
Normal as in birds and bees... Normal as in evoultionary sexual enhancements and other mechanisms that naturally attract the female to the male of the species.

Normal as in sodomy is not normal, it may be enjoyable, but not normal.

MavKikiNYC
04-20-2005, 11:06 PM
Still fuzzy, Dude.

Surely you're not going to try to argue that "normal" as it pertains to sex is only about pro-creation.

Because then you'd have to account for the statistical reality that the majority of sexual exchanges do NOT result in the formation of an embryo, rendering all such heterosexual exchanges "abnormal". Actually, in that sense, actual pro-creation would be the ab-normal outcome, and I'm pretty sure that's not the contradiction you're attempting to capture.

Alternatively, you'd be left explaining how post-menopausal sex or sex where one of the partners were infertile was ab-normal (in the deviant sense).

Not to mention the common sense reality that sex is much more motivated by: 1) the biological urge to experience pleasure; or 2) the emotional urge to express love than the aforementioned conscious urge to pro-create.

Finally, you'd have to at least explore the notion that if homosexuals were evolutionary biologicial anomalies in the procreation sense, then you'd expect to see them less capable of procreating. And this, to the consternation of tut-tutting fundamentalists, is manifestly not the case.

Epitome22
04-20-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

The point I was trying to make is that society has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable. If they do so that doesn't necessarily make them bigots. Homosexuality is not a normal act by definition.

It's not the "determining what is and is not acceptable" that makes members of a society bigots; rather, it is the "obstinate, intolerant, irrational belief in the correctness of their own opinions and prejudices, and the attempts to impose such beliefs on other members of society who do not share them" that pretty much dictionary-defines them as such. Your assertion that homosexuality is not, by definition, a normal act is in opposition to the collective opinion of psychiatric and mental health professionals, whose metier it is to define such "normalcy".


Society in general should be tolerant of the private affairs of people, but I see no reason that society must automatically condone those affairs. Nor do I think it is a wise course to pretend that homosexuality is a normal practice and therefore all young boys and girls either "should" be encouraged or placed in a situation where they might be.

You seem to equate "condoing those affairs" with affording equal protection under the law, or refusing to deny equal rights. That understanding of "condone" is particular to you, and both your choice of language and your obstinate, intolerant, irrational attitude toward homosexuality (which by your own acknowledgement you have very limited first-hand familiarity with other than occasional forays onto the NMBLA website) reveals much.

What you seem to oppose (fear?) most is that parent-less, family-less young boys and girls being provided a loving, caring, nuturing upbringing in a foster home would develop the seemingly foreign concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness by seeing that gay or lesbian parents could be just as loving, caring, nurturing and "normal" as any others.

Would you also oppose the placement of foster children in a home with heterosexual parents who did not share your views on homosexuality? On religion? On politics? Your answers to these questions will define you in a way that I don't have to.


Hot damn!

I tell you, Urbane Conservatives and small 'l' Libertarians are going to lead our people to the promise land! Well said Kiki.

dude1394
04-20-2005, 11:31 PM
Looks like you are just being obtuse to make other points about "sex" not being a traditional definition of sex. I think you are getting my drift, you may not agree with it, but it's a pretty simple statement of what normal is.

So normal in this case is the use of the equipment the way the equipment was designed to be used. Sure it's enjoyable to use the equipment in other ways as well, it may even be enjoyable to use the equipment with all sorts of other creatures, machines, etc., damn near anything, but that would not fit the definition of normal as I am using it.



Not to mention the common sense reality that sex is much more motivated by: 1) the biological urge to experience pleasure; or 2) the emotional urge to express love than the aforementioned conscious urge to pro-create.

I actually don't necessarily agree with this statement. I might be convinced otherwise but I'm not sure how you can seperate such low-level biological urges so cleanly. You might even make a case (again I'm speculating) that individuals who do NOT respond to those low-level biological urges to procreate have a prediliction to be gay. Beats me, i'm speaking from ignorance here.


Finally, you'd have to at least explore the notion that if homosexuals were evolutionary biologicial anomalies in the procreation sense, then you'd expect to see them less capable of procreating. And this, to the consternation of tut-tutting fundamentalists, is manifestly not the case.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I would expect that through history homosexuals did not procreate as much as heterosexuals. Again as per my above statement they may actually BE less emotionally capable of procreation. Not physically but because without a "sub-conscious" urge to pro-create they do not. I do not know the statistics but I would imagine that homosexuals do not procreate as much as heterosexuals.

Usually Lurkin
04-21-2005, 06:32 AM
The issue does not have anything to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong/natural or unnatural, and it has nothing to do with whether homosexuals can provide a home that's better than the abusive homes that children are taken out of. It has everything to do with whether it's better to take a kid out of an abusive household (where there are security and identity issues already in place) and place them in a home with heterosexual parents or to place them in a home with homosexual parents. Since research shows greater stress for kids in homosexual households v. kids in heterosexual households (research disagrees about degree), it's a legitimate concern. no matter what the cause of that stress. Even if that stress is caused by the bigotry the kids receive on behalf of their homosexual parents, it's still unfair to place the kids in that situation. If you want to get rid of the bigotry first, and other wise prove that same-sex parenting is as stable as heterosex parenting (all else being equal - anactdotes abound on both sides), that's fine. But until then, don't go using children to advance that agenda.

MavKikiNYC
04-21-2005, 08:18 AM
So, UL, if research indicates that children in African-American households are subject to more stress (and more stress-related diseases) than non-African-American households, is that similarly a reason to reject African-Americans as foster parents--no matter what the cause of that strees is. Even if that stress is caused by the bigotry the children endure because of their African-American parents? Should African-American foster children be removed from households headed by African-American foster parents until bigotry, racism and prejudice are eradicated in America?

Also, regarding the research to which you refer, I"d certainly be interested to see some of those studies, and to know more about the researchers who conducted them and the institutions who sponsored them. I've never seen a study that concludes what you suggest, let alone any reputable ones.

The logic of the mind often reveals the motives of the heart.

Usually Lurkin
04-21-2005, 09:43 AM
your analogy is crude because it ignores an interaction between parents' race and children's race. Legitimately, I'd say that in so far as African american children report greater stress and identity issues when raised by whites, then yes. It's a bad idea to place blacks in white homes or whites in black homes when placement involves children already at risk. If you can prove beyond doubt that a child will grow up homosexual, and that they would probably experience less stress in a homosexual household than heterosexual household, then you've got a legitimate analogy. The goal should always be: given what we know, where do we place this child to absolutely maximize the stability of their environment.

More to the point, we can look at risk levels, and ask society, "what risk is acceptable for your children? " I'd be willing to bet that most texans (if asked honestly) would say there is high risk involved in placing children into homosexual households, and that it's better not to do that until the environments are proven safe. Other risks that I personally would say are unacceptable (like crossing ethnic lines, or placing these at-risk children into single parent families), society would probably say are acceptable risks. I'd like to emphasize that the debate would be entirely different if we were talking about birth adoption, or other children that aren't already primed for developmental problems.

I have a reasearch list somewhere, and will post it after I have a chance to look for it.

MavKikiNYC
04-21-2005, 10:10 AM
your analogy is crude because it ignores an interaction between parents' race and children's race. Legitimately, I'd say that in so far as African american children report greater stress and identity issues when raised by whites, then yes. It's a bad idea to place blacks in white homes or whites in black homes when placement involves children already at risk. If you can prove beyond doubt that a child will grow up homosexual, and that they would probably experience less stress in a homosexual household than heterosexual household, then you've got a legitimate analogy. The goal should always be: given what we know, where do we place this child to absolutely maximize the stability of their environment.

Your attempt to rebutt is crude because it avoids (intentionally?) the essential question--if some research (be it nebulous or substantial) argues that African-American foster children in foster homes headed by African-American foster parents experience greater levels of stress (or other pernicious effect) because of bigoted attitudes, policies, institutions and/or acts against the African-American parents, is it your contention that African-American children (or any child) should not be placed in households headed by African-American parents?

You can even alter the parameters to mitigate the factor of race--what if the child is of mixed ethnicity? where should the child be placed?--and the flaws in the logic of your argument are even more apparent.

The solution you suggest would further reduce and limit the already scarce number of caregivers, based on assertions rooted in much contested (and largely refuted) premises--namely that homosexual foster parents are less capable of providing a stable home/family environment for a child in need.

The reality is that there is a shortage of foster homes and foster parents of whatever persuasion (racial, sexual, political, religious) to provide homeless and parentless children a nurturing, caring, loving, stable environment. Given the circumstances, the state is often hard-pressed to provide ANY environment at all for these, let alone one that meets your definition of "stable".

kingrex
04-21-2005, 10:42 AM
I agree that the state has the responsibility to define what household is considered "acceptable" for foster homes.

However, until it is proven that a homosexual household is an unfit environment to raise a child, then I don't believe that those individuals who happen to be gay should be prevented from petitioning to be foster parents. Especially in light of the limited amount of qualified foster parent candidates.

Moreover, a child raised in a homosexual household does not have a higher chance of being homosexual, contrary to popular belief.

Usually Lurkin
04-21-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Your attempt to rebutt is crude because it avoids (intentionally?) the essential question--if some research (be it nebulous or substantial) argues that African-American foster children in foster homes headed by African-American foster parents experience greater levels of stress (or other pernicious effect) because of bigoted attitudes, policies, institutions and/or acts against the African-American parents, is it your contention that African-American children (or any child) should not be placed in households headed by African-American parents?

The essential question is what is best for the child. And again, the goal should always be to place the child in the best home possible, given what we know of "best homes possible". We do know the race of children, and we do know that there is an interaction between race of the child and race of the parent. In order to answer the essential question, "Given what we know, where is the best home to place the child." We should use that information. To ignore that interaction between the races of parent and child is to avoid the essential question.

You can even alter the parameters to mitigate the factor of race--what if the child is of mixed ethnicity? where should the child be placed?--and the flaws in the logic of your argument are even more apparent.
best place would be a mixed race household, where someone else will already have dealt with the specific racial issues the child will be dealing with. I don't see the flaw.


The solution you suggest would further reduce and limit the already scarce number of caregivers, based on assertions rooted in much contested (and largely refuted) premises--namely that homosexual foster parents are less capable of providing a stable home/family environment for a child in need.
That's a non-point. As argued above by someone else, it also reduces the number of caregivers if you disqualify members of the KKK, members of NAMBLA, chronic pot smokers, gamblers, and government hit men. People also argue that these households are perfectly stable and acceptable. The reduction of number of caregivers and/or the presence of debate is not a defacto argument to qualify a person for foster parenthood.


The reality is that there is a shortage of foster homes and foster parents of whatever persuasion (racial, sexual, political, religious) to provide homeless and parentless children a nurturing, caring, loving, stable environment. Given the circumstances, the state is often hard-pressed to provide ANY environment at all for these, let alone one that meets your definition of "stable".
That depends on who you ask. It's probably more legitimate to claim that there is a shortage of "good" foster homes. many people claim that there is a lot of abuse in the texas system by unqualified foster parents who merely want a check from the government. These people claim that children sometimes die in the system at the hands of bad foster parents. It seems a bad idea to correct the faults of a system by relaxing the risk tolerance rather than making sure the level of risk acceptable to the public is legitimately met. A better approach would be to increase recruitment of secure and stable households.

mnmpeanut
04-21-2005, 10:47 AM
i think the point that is being missed is that the legislature is, imo, unnecessarily limiting a valuable resource - a caring, loving home for foster children. this isn't a matter of choice, this is a matter of need. for the child, this isn't a choice between a heterosexual family unit or a homosexual family unit, this is a choice between a caring, nuturing (hopefully) environment with adults who want to help raise them or staying in an institution or an abusive situation.

i think a child who has spent any significant time in an institution or bouncing from foster family to foster family would welcome the extra "stress" of living with a homosexual family unit, as long as the situation was stable and supportive.


i have to say, i think this portion of the article pretty much sums it up for me:


"The House today put personal and political biases ahead of the interests of children who have been abused and neglected," Ms. Miller said, adding that the measure would "further strain a foster system that is already overburdened, forcing more children into institutions rather than safe, loving homes."

kingrex
04-21-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by: mnmpeanut
i think the point that is being missed is that the legislature is, imo, unnecessarily limiting a valuable resource - a caring, loving home for foster children. this isn't a matter of choice, this is a matter of need. for the child, this isn't a choice between a heterosexual family unit or a homosexual family unit, this is a choice between a caring, nuturing (hopefully) environment with adults who want to help raise them or staying in an institution or an abusive situation.

i think a child who has spent any significant time in an institution or bouncing from foster family to foster family would welcome the extra "stress" of living with a homosexual family unit, as long as the situation was stable and supportive.


i have to say, i think this portion of the article pretty much sums it up for me:


"The House today put personal and political biases ahead of the interests of children who have been abused and neglected," Ms. Miller said, adding that the measure would "further strain a foster system that is already overburdened, forcing more children into institutions rather than safe, loving homes."

I think that's a bit disingenuous. I think both sides really believe they are helping the kids here. It really just boils down to whether or not one thinks that a homosexual household can be good enough to raise a child properly.

MavKikiNYC
04-21-2005, 03:58 PM
The essential question is what is best for the child. And again, the goal should always be to place the child in the best home possible, given what we know of "best homes possible". We do know the race of children, and we do know that there is an interaction between race of the child and race of the parent. In order to answer the essential question, "Given what we know, where is the best home to place the child." We should use that information. To ignore that interaction between the races of parent and child is to avoid the essential question.

It still seems that you're trying to avoid answering the question, but I infer that you're backpedaling as fast as you can from any connection to the idea that foster children shouldn't be placed in a home of a specifc race because of alleged "research" that shows even a specious association with stress levels inflicted upon the children due to external influences beyond the parents' control (i.e., race in this instance). So it would be logically inconsistent to persist in arguing that such a standard should be applied to foster parents who are homosexual.


The best place would be a mixed race household, where someone else will already have dealt with the specific racial issues the child will be dealing with. I don't see the flaw.

This kind of statement makes me wonder if you know anything at all about foster family programs. The state is not in the position of being able to select from an extensive bank of foster families of every possible demographic permutation so as to "maximize" the child's well-being. States are lucky to be able to find households (period) who can provide the child with the support and stability they need. You can't offer one iota of substantial research that support your claim regarding children of mixed race, and I know of a couple of concrete examples that would blow any such claims out of the water.


That's a non-point. As argued above by someone else, it also reduces the number of caregivers if you disqualify members of the KKK, members of NAMBLA, chronic pot smokers, gamblers, and government hit men. People also argue that these households are perfectly stable and acceptable. The reduction of number of caregivers and/or the presence of debate is not a defacto argument to qualify a person for foster parenthood.

Sorry, it is THE point. You suggest further limiting a scarce resource based on smear-tactic rationale--unproven, unprovable, unfounded "research" rooted in the bigoted belief that homosexuals are incapable of being good parents, incapable of providing stable homes, and unworthy of being considered alongside heterosexual citizens as capable, responsible, contriubting members of society. To persist in arguing those claims is shameful, and to compare rejecting homosexuals to rejecting members of the KKK, or NAMBLA, pot smokers, gamblers, or government hit men shows your truest colors.


That depends on who you ask. It's probably more legitimate to claim that there is a shortage of "good" foster homes. Many people claim that there is a lot of abuse in the texas system by unqualified foster parents who merely want a check from the government. These people claim that children sometimes die in the system at the hands of bad foster parents. It seems a bad idea to correct the faults of a system by relaxing the risk tolerance rather than making sure the level of risk acceptable to the public is legitimately met. A better approach would be to increase recruitment of secure and stable households.

There's a shortage period--whether we're talking "good" by YOUR definition or "good" by mine. There is far greater risk to leaving these children to be shuffled around in a system by reducing the number of qualifed foster parents based on a bigoted premise. Again, you should be ashamed to pretend to argue that with a "straight" face.

kg_veteran
04-21-2005, 04:34 PM
Wow, interesting thread. I'll admit that I haven't read every post word for word, but a couple of points:

1. Kiki, it's fallacious for you to compare race to homosexuality, because you're begging the question. We know for an absolute fact that you are born of a certain race; that is undisputed. It is HOTLY disputed (here on this message board and in society in general) whether a person can be born homosexual or not.

2. I really doubt that anybody involved is thinking first and foremost about the interests of the children involved. That's not to say that they aren't concerned about that, but this is more about two competing political agendas, and I don't know why we should pretend that it isn't.

mary
04-21-2005, 06:59 PM
Sorry, it is THE point. You suggest further limiting a scarce resource based on smear-tactic rationale--unproven, unprovable, unfounded "research" rooted in the bigoted belief that homosexuals are incapable of being good parents, incapable of providing stable homes, and unworthy of being considered alongside heterosexual citizens as capable, responsible, contriubting members of society. To persist in arguing those claims is shameful, and to compare rejecting homosexuals to rejecting members of the KKK, or NAMBLA, pot smokers, gamblers, or government hit men shows your truest colors.


AMEN.

Murphy3
04-21-2005, 09:32 PM
Gays and lesbians are unfit to raise children. They don't even know what they're supposed to do with their penis and/or vagina. How can they know what to do when it comes to raising a child?

What's going to happen? Will the child grow up having sexual intercourse with squirrels and dogs? Talk about a confused society. Can you imagine the impact that allowing gays and lesbians to raise children would have on our entertainment industry? What's the show where the gay guys come in and gay-out an otherwise normal man subjecting him to all kinds of gaydom. Well, I can only imagine that the gayification of our country would quickly render the U.S. as unimportant as other countries such as Mexico and France on the gobal scene.

On second thought, gays and lesbians should be allowed to raise children. However, they should have to have direct supervision from a social worker 24/7 for the first couple of years... Once it's determined that they're not going to gayify the child, the social worker can give them the ok to proceed on unsupervised.

mercury_rev
04-22-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Wow, interesting thread. I'll admit that I haven't read every post word for word, but a couple of points:

1. Kiki, it's fallacious for you to compare race to homosexuality, because you're begging the question. We know for an absolute fact that you are born of a certain race; that is undisputed. It is HOTLY disputed (here on this message board and in society in general) whether a person can be born homosexual or not.

2. I really doubt that anybody involved is thinking first and foremost about the interests of the children involved. That's not to say that they aren't concerned about that, but this is more about two competing political agendas, and I don't know why we should pretend that it isn't.

KG, why does the issue turn on whether homosexuality is matter of choice or of genetic predisposition? If it can be shown with a reasonable amount of objectivity that homosexuals generally make for unfit foster parents, then the nature of its origin is irrelevant, isn't it?

As for race: if, counterfactually, reasonable evidence existed that, say, Whites and Hispanics were generally bad foster parents while Blacks and Asians were generally good foster parents, wouldn't the legal case for favoring some races over others turn on these facts alone, regardless of the additional fact that race is not a chosen attribute?

You may well be correct that this particular debate is charged with an undue infusion of political opportunism on both sides, as are most political debates within the halls of state or federal legislatures. But the motives of political players on either side don't change the central issue: are homosexuals generally fit to be foster parents?

Murph, great satire!

kg_veteran
04-22-2005, 08:49 AM
mercury_rev - Because Kiki was implying that African-Americans could be excluded from foster parenting based on the fact that they are African-American. Such conduct would pretty clearly violate the Equal Protection Clause. The same is not true of excluding homosexuals on the basis that they are homosexual. The two groups are not viewed the same, Constitutionally speaking.

From a practical standpoint, I can see the arguments for and against allowing homosexuals to serve as foster parents. I come down on the against side, but I can see and understand Kiki's point of view.

From a political standpoint, even though I'm sure some Republicans truly believe that homosexuals aren't fit to be foster parents, this to me appears to be a preemptive strike to block the next logical move by the pro-homosexual lobby: to legalize homosexual adoption in Texas.

kingrex
04-22-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by: mercury_rev

KG, why does the issue turn on whether homosexuality is matter of choice or of genetic predisposition? If it can be shown with a reasonable amount of objectivity that homosexuals generally make for unfit foster parents, then the nature of its origin is irrelevant, isn't it?


I know this was directed at KG, but if I may be allowed to rebutt (funny word).

The relevance of origin is important because the question of whether a homosexual home is fit or unfit, by this law, is NOT allowed be asked.

By this law, a homosexual couple don't have the ability to even petition to be foster parents. This is mainly due to the belief that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice and not biologically determined.

Drbio
04-22-2005, 03:19 PM
LOL Murph.

MavKikiNYC
04-28-2005, 09:13 PM
THE NUMBERS GUY
By CARL BIALIK
WSJOnline

Debate Over Gay Foster Parents
Shines Light on a Dubious Stat
April 28, 2005

Last week, the Texas House of Representatives passed a child-services bill with an amendment that would make Texas the first state in the nation to prevent same-sex couples from becoming foster parents. The state Senate passed a conflicting bill without that measure, and the two bodies are debating how to proceed.

The proposed ban attracted national media attention, and several "pro-family" groups seeking to drum up support for the bill have been circulating some troubling stats about gay parents. Among the most striking, stated during a CNN program: children in foster homes with same-sex parents are 11 times as likely to be sexually abused as those with heterosexual parents.

To get on CNN, that number snaked through a twisting path, from a little-noticed Illinois study published by an antigay scientist/activist in a psychological journal, to several conservative Web sites, to, finally, the attention of a Texas activist who presented her misinterpretation of the study on national television, essentially unchallenged. It's a textbook example of how flawed numbers can gain national attention if advocates work hard enough -- especially when there aren't widely-known conflicting estimates.

I'll start at the end of the number's path and try to unravel it to the source. Cathie Adams, president of the Dallas-based Texas Eagle Forum advocacy group, appeared April 21 on CNN in a debate segment about the proposed Texas law. Her designated sparring partner was Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "We also have got to look at research that does show that children in same-sex couple homes are 11 times more likely to be abused sexually," Ms. Adams said during the live segment. "And I think that that is not an issue that can be ignored. It is a proven fact and that was a research study done in the state of Illinois that has not, as the state of Texas has not, even asked that question."

"That's a bold statement," said CNN anchor Kyra Phillips, who gave Mr. Ellis a chance to respond. At first he called Ms. Adams's assertion "completely uncredible" and "completely absurd," but later he conceded he hadn't heard of the study before. Ms. Phillips didn't revisit the claim.

Ms. Adams told me that her source for the claim was an article she had read on the conservative site WorldNetDaily, about a study published in February by Paul Cameron, chairman of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Family Research Institute, a group that says homosexuality is a major public-health threat. In the journal Psychological Reports, Dr. Cameron analyzed cases of sexual abuse committed against foster children and children in subsidized adoption homes, as reported to Illinois's Department of Children and Family Services from 1997 to 2002. There were 270 reports, and 34% of those were same-sex in nature: committed by a male adult against a male child, or a female adult against a female child. Dr. Cameron called those homosexual acts of abuse, and, citing several studies, including a joint report by the University of Michigan and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concluded that gays make up between 1% and 3% of the adult U.S. population. "Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to sexually abuse foster or adoptive children," Dr. Cameron wrote.

This required several leaps of logic, some of which I'll discuss later. The biggest is that Dr. Cameron had no data about the makeup of homes in which the Illinois children were abused; indeed, a state DCFS spokeswoman told me the agency doesn't record whether households are same-sex. It's possible that much of what Dr. Cameron calls homosexual abuse occurred in what would be considered heterosexual homes.

Yet Ms. Adams simply divided 3% into 34% to get her number. When I asked her about this discrepancy between what the study found and what she said, she replied, "I believe I didn't have that articulated as well as I should have." But she also said it seems unlikely that abuse would be homosexual in nature yet committed by an apparent heterosexual. "It just requires more explanation than what you can do in soundbites," she said.

Mr. Ellis, Ms. Adams's debate opponent, told me that a brief segment on live television isn't the ideal format for fact-checking, and said he believes it's the news anchor's responsibility to ask, "Where are you getting that study?" A CNN spokeswoman told me in an e-mailed statement that "the opposing guest was given an opportunity to respond to the guest's statement in question."

Ms. Adams did get Dr. Cameron's results onto national television, but for the most part the mainstream press ignores him these days. That's because for two decades he has published studies critical of gays while openly espousing an antigay agenda. Speaking about his institute, Dr. Cameron told me, "We agree that homosexuality is one of the greatest public-health threats of our time, and that engaging in it ought to be discouraged to the same degree that we discourage illegal drug abuse."

Dr. Cameron's work deserves a closer look, for two reasons. First, overt researcher bias makes results questionable but doesn't necessarily invalidate them. And second, while the media have grown skeptical of his work, Dr. Cameron still influences political debate. His research was cited earlier this year by a Virginia lawmaker advocating legislation to discourage gay couples from adopting children (the House of Delegates approved the bill, but a state senate committee killed the measure). And Dr. Cameron is a leading advocate of the notion that gays are more likely to sexually abuse children, which is one of the main arguments against gay marriage and adoption and has surfaced in related debates in Arkansas and New Hampshire.

Texas state Rep. Robert Talton, a Republican from Pasadena who proposed the ban on gay foster parents, didn't directly raise the issue of sexual abuse, but did say on the House floor, "It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual." His office told me he wasn't available for further comment.

I ran Dr. Cameron's paper by some experts in psychology, sociology, statistics and child welfare, as well as a researcher who has in the past defended Dr. Cameron.

Besides his lack of data about same-sex couples in Illinois, researchers pointed out Dr. Cameron's flawed assumption that the gender of pedophiles' victims correlates to adult sexual attraction; that he applied nationwide data on homosexuality to a predominantly Chicago-based population of foster homes; and that he cited many of his own studies, including two previous ones that attempted to calculate the proportion of sexual abuse that is same-sex based on small sample sizes of six and 25 cases of abuse, respectively.

"The paper is not written as a competent research paper," said Paul Velleman, associate professor of social statistics at Cornell University. "This is a pretty lightweight study," said Kenneth Land, professor of sociology at Duke University and chair of the American Statistical Association's mathematical sociology section.

Walter Schumm, professor of family studies at Kansas State, once published a paper responding to Dr. Cameron's critics, but in this case he questioned Dr. Cameron's conclusion that same-sex couples pose a special threat to children. "Since the state didn't provide him with any data on whether parents were heterosexual or gay, it's hard to make any definitive statements other than that much of the abuse seems to be same-gendered," Dr. Schumm said. "For all we know, that could all be by heterosexual parents."

Child-welfare advocates also disputed Dr. Cameron's conclusions. Linda Spears, vice president of communications and development for the Child Welfare League of America, an advocacy organization in Washington, said, "Sexual abuse is not sex. It is a crime of control and power." The CWLA opposes a ban on gay foster parents, as does the Illinois DCFS, according to spokeswoman Diane Jackson. And Margaret Berglind, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Child Care Association of Illinois, said that the scarcity of homes for foster children should outweigh what she considered a questionable study, adding that gay couples sometimes prove most willing to accept hard-to-place children, like those who are HIV-positive.

When I told Dr. Cameron about these criticisms, he responded, "All scientists have bias," and, "There is no perfect study." He does contend that those who commit same-sex child abuse are gay, regardless of whether they identify themselves as homosexuals. And while Dr. Cameron said Ms. Adams's conclusion about his research might be wrong, depending on the proportion of gays among Illinois foster parents, he stood by the conclusion drawn by Ms. Adams: "Those who come into [family-services agencies] waving the homosexual banner should be excluded, because they are a much greater risk to children," Dr. Cameron said.

I also interviewed Douglas Ammons, co-editor of Psychological Reports, the Missoula, Mont.-based journal that published Dr. Cameron. He said that the journal uses more reviewers than usual for Dr. Cameron's submissions -- from four up to as many as 21 -- but ultimately, "We don't put limits on people's creativity on how they may or may not interpret stuff." Dr. Ammons added, "We try to come down on the side of one of the basic tenets of science -- free speech for the author." He said the importance of the issue and lack of competing data merited publication. "When you are in a difficult situation without much data, it's OK to use data that's not as exact or exacting as we would like it to be," he said. Dr. Ammons invited Cameron critics to submit rebuttals to the journal and said he has published rebuttals of Dr. Cameron's prior work.

I do think it's worthwhile to study the issue further, because it is likely to keep surfacing in the debate over whether gay couples make good parents.

The best available study I could find on this subject, led over a decade ago by Brown University pediatrics professor Carole Jenny at a Denver hospital, found that only two of 269 cases of sexual abuse over a year's time could be traced to a perpetrator who was identifiably gay. (Incidentally, Dr. Jenny told me she was prompted to conduct the study after reading an article that cited Dr. Cameron's research about gay sexual abuse, which didn't square with her clinical experience.) But her study itself is hampered by several factors, including its age and limited geographical scope, and that the overall proportion of same-sex households in Denver wasn't known.

As Dr. Jenny and her co-authors wrote, a better study would track a randomly selected, large group of either children or of adults and measure incidence of sexual abuse. I asked her if she thought it would be worth conducting such a study.

She replied, "Would a big, expensive research project convince folks that gay people are not an unusual threat to children? I don't know, but research hasn't done much to inform the debate on evolution."
* * *

As it turns out, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" also looked into the CNN debate between Ms. Adams and Mr. Ellis as part of a segment called "Gaywatch." A clip is available on the show's Web site. (Some viewers may find host Jon Stewart's language objectionable.)

MFFL41
05-01-2005, 12:00 PM
dude123 i agree with you totally. When will pedophila, necrophilia, molestation, and other forms of "sexuality" be viewed like homosexuality is now?

About the foster parent issue. I was watching an interview with Rosie O'Donell and her partner (I cringe saying that) and she was asked by her child if he was gay. Now if that child isn't confused, i don't know what is.

I would say homosexuals come from 3 situations.
1. Abuse (in terms of beating)
2. Sexual abuse (in terms of molestation)
3. Negligence (as in for a boy being neglected by a father and vice versa for girls)

If they weren't cared for as children how would they know to parent children. This is the same for heterosexuals as well. Some people just aren't fit for parenting. But you can't tell a person they can't have children. Where do people learn parenting from. They learn from what their parents did. Basically it's not anyones fault but parents. Something happened down the line where parents didn't parent their children like they should have (gay or not).

kingrex
05-02-2005, 04:52 PM
Let's not get hysterical here, I don't think sex with a child can EVER be equated with sex among consenting adults. That slippery slope doesn't slide there.

dude1394
05-03-2005, 10:52 AM
Kingrex, I'm not sure how you can say that honestly. No one would have thought homosexuality would be promoted in our popular culture as it is today or the prevalence of the most graphic pornography available basically at the click of a button to any child that can logon to a computer at a library.

What is the "moral" argument that someone will make on this from secular individuals who may have no moral compass. You certainly have seen the seeming explosion of pedophilia in our society, I understand that your morals wouldn't allow it, but to say that others will not, in say 30 years is not really defendable...

I mean "if it feels good do it" has been a pretty popular catch phrase for our culture for a while. Without the limiting presence of religion, i'm not exactly sure where we would go.

Mavdog
05-03-2005, 12:35 PM
The fallacy in your argument is that throughout history religion has not reduced nor limited any of the extreme sexual practices of pedophilia, et al. There is not any higher incidence of these acts today just more public exposure when it occurs.

It is ridiculous to compare predatory sexual acts with adult consensual decisions.

kingrex
05-03-2005, 12:43 PM
I understand your sense of outrage, especially if you believe the biblical passage which states that homosexuality is an abomination.

The fact is the bible promotes many practices that today's society would deem "socially unacceptable". For example, the idea of making your daughters available to weary travelers as a sign of good hospitality. Animal sacrifices and burning your enemies babies in times of war.

The forefathers of this nation have picked and chosen aspects of the Judeo-Christian moral teachings to use for this countries laws. For that I have no problem, however, the status of citizens of a homosexual persuasion was NOT an issue, until now.

So, does this nation go back to ancient Judeo-Christian moral teachings again or does this nation create legislation based on social issues pertinent to present time?

I don't claim to have the answer, but the question is relevant to this issue.

dude1394
05-03-2005, 08:50 PM
Actually my personal thoughts on it aren't driven so much by religion as by what seems to be a drive by certain members of society to openly promote and condone this abnormal lifestyle and to try and make it mainstream. I probably should have left out the religious aspects so that the conversation doesn't get sidetracked, but sure religious beliefs drives much of the morality in societies.

I mostly have issues with popular culture (or certainly government) romanticising or condoning what appears to be out of the mainstream lifestyles. I have the same issues with popular culture romanticising promiscuity, drug use and out of wedlock children.

In general I'm much more comfortable with society tolerating these practices but not promoting them. I really cannot control popular culture, but I do have a voice in my government.

-------------
Certainly our morality has changed over the years with respect to womens rights, slaves and the other actions you mention. Those are certainly out of the mainstream now as they were not then. However you prove my point to some degree. If society does not have the ability to put limits on sexual behaviours what keeps the stigma of pedophilia at bay as it were. One of the most visible examples is NAMBLA (I sort of hate to use it as I'll probably get flamed) but a group that openly promotes man-boy sex just wouldn't have been openly tolerated in our society in the not too distant past.

I'm not saying it is mainstream now, but I do not see any sort of organized uproar about it, it's treated as just another sexual peccadillo in some respects, much like hard-core bondage, beastiality or really whatever else is done behind close doors, if it's between consenting "adults" and no one gets hurt, hey who cares. In most respects I agree with that as long as it doesn't necessarily become accepted by our society as the norm.

kingrex
05-04-2005, 10:18 AM
A very cogent argument. However, we differ in the belief of what this ban on gay foster parents means.

To you, the ban protects our society from sliding into some type of immoral society.

To me, the ban just limits the pool of potential foster parents which is pretty thin already.

I don't believe that accepting homosexuality as the "norm" would lead to the acceptance of pedophilia. As you put it, you don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and that's the difference. One is between consenting adults, and the other is not. I just don't see it as a logical progression.

This ban is not a protection against child abuse. All it does is limit the number of potentially good foster parents.