Texas may ban gay foster parents

[Lady Jedi]

AUSTIN, Texas - Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

 

Full Article.

 

So what do you guys think? I'm not sure what to think of it. I think that homosexuality is wrong, but just because I don't like what they do, or the way they live, doesn't make them bad people. So, should they be denied children simply for their choices? Is it fair to the children? I mean, maybe these kids love their adoptive parents, so it seems like it would be a big injustice to take them away. And as for preventing the kids from ever getting to be with a gay couple: That's where I'm not sure what to think. As I said before, I don't agree with the way the live, but is it fair to deny them children?

 

You decide.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think that homosexuality is wrong, but just because I don't like what they do, or the way they live, doesn't make them bad people. So, should they be denied children simply for their choices?

That's a very tolerant view, there. Good one:).

 

Well, Norwegian homosexual foster parents hardly meet any prejudice at all. Not even the kids' playmates think it's odd that the parents are both the same gender. So no problem there.

 

As a side note: Homophobes can adopt children, so shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to do so as well?

[ET Warrior]

**** Texas.

 

Seriously, I have no patience for biggots who can't accept anything that is strange or "icky"

 

**** em

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Well, what'd you expect, it's Bush's home state, after all.

 

I have to wonder if the proclamation of this law change bore the head line "A tribute to George W. Bush":rolleyes:.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

**** Texas.

 

Seriously, I have no patience for biggots who can't accept anything that is strange or "icky"

 

**** em

^

As Lewis Black would say, "I'd like to find the drug that can make someone so delusional and ignorant"

 

 

I think this is a law being brought up so as not to be out-homophobed by Alabama and Georgia and a few other southern states.

[Spider AL]

One can ask: Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?

 

One can ask: Should sports-bag fetishists that molest luggage be allowed to adopt children?

 

One can ask: Should ultra-religious celibate people be allowed to adopt children?

 

All these questions are the same... MEANINGLESS. I choose to shag members of the opposite sex. THIS PREFERENCE DOES NOT AFFECT MY ABILITY AS A PARENT.

 

Having said that, I'm against homosexual activists adopting children, just as I am against RELIGIOUS fundamentalists adopting children. That's not because of their sexual preference, it's because they're loaded down with crappy dogma, and will poison their child's mind one way or another.

 

But once again, stupid issues like this make a mockery of the truth: that sex is NOT THAT IMPORTANT, and I wish both the legislature and homosexuals would shut up about it, as NOBODY with any sense CARES who or what you shag, as long as it's consentual.

[Lady Jedi]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

**** Texas.

 

Seriously, I have no patience for biggots who can't accept anything that is strange or "icky"

 

**** em

Well, we weren't discussing your patience for certain people. We were discussing this law. And you can't say that all Texans are bigots. I, for one, was born and raised there, yet I couldn't care less what someone's color, religion, ethnicity, or even sexual preferrence is. We're all people, despite our differences. BTW, ET, you misspelled 'bigots'.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

That's a very tolerant view, there. Good one:).

Thank you. It's the way I was raised by my Texan mother.

[TK-8252]

Yay, our country is progressing backwards.

 

Awesome. Let's deny children the right to a loving foster family, but let's say that we're actually protecting them from teh evil fags!!

 

 

Idiots.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Lady Jedi

. And you can't say that all Texans are bigots.

 

I did NOT say **** Texans, I said **** Texas

 

There is a big distinction there.

[Lady Jedi]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I did NOT say **** Texans, I said **** Texas

 

There is a big distinction there.

 

Ah, now I see. You're bashing the entire state, but not the people of the state?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Lady Jedi

Ah, now I see. You're bashing the entire state, but not the people of the state?

... Texas Government, I guess he figured it'd be obvious which he was talking about, considering who passes the laws. Last time I checked it wasn't the citizens.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

... Texas Government, I guess he figured it'd be obvious which he was talking about, considering who passes the laws. Last time I checked it wasn't the citizens.

 

But by extension he's insulting the citizens who did elect the current Texan government.

 

Knowing that, **** Texas.

 

 

I don't know what's the problem, I mean for the love of God it's only homosexuals. They should worry about more pressing matters, like washing clothes or watching paint dry.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Tyrion

But by extension he's insulting the citizens who did elect the current Texan government.

But this wasn't exactly given out as an issue in elections. This kind of popped out of left field. But I get what you're saying.

[Rogue15]

hell no. that is my first opinion, however when thinking about it, even tho i personally wouldn't want to have gay parents....it's better than a foster home.

 

 

until the poor bastard hits puberty.

[wassup]

What kind of idiots elected this bigot (Republican Rep. Robert Talton) to the legislature? It's really quite distressing when nothing is being to prevent the enactment of what is in essence Jim Crow laws for homosexuals.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Lady Jedi

Ah, now I see. You're bashing the entire state, but not the people of the state?

 

Typically when one refers to "The State" They are refering to the government. If you said you worked for the state of Colorado, that doesn't mean you're just a citizen, you're a government employee.

 

 

Ergo, saying Texas sucks doesn't mean the people of Texas suck.

[swphreak]

TEXAS:

• Motto: Friendship ?
  
• Nickname: Lone Star Homophobe State
  

 

Yeah.... well... I guess we'll know what that caravan is for huh?

[TheMadDoofer]

Living in Texas, I realize that thinking that way is very common, but I do not agree with the majority of my state's population.

 

However, before you bash us (deservedly) more, you should know that it is getting better - fewer people are outwardly hating homosexuals than a few years ago. (At least in my area)

[SkinWalker]

I warn you, my reply in this post is critical of certain aspects of Christianity, so if you find yourself easily offended by those that question and criticize religion, you might want to do one or both of the following:

 

1)bear in mind that I respect the "spirit" and intent of the teachings of Christ, even though I question whether he was an actual person or a myth;

 

2) skip my post altogether.

 

I think a criticism of neo-Christian fundamentalists is warranted and on-topic, particularly with regard to Robert Talton. Moreover, I'm a registered voter in Texas and pay attention to such things.

 

“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,” said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

 

That isn't a comment based on science and true concern for children, it's one based on fear and hatred. There is absolutely no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents have less advantages than those raised by heterosexual and there certainly isn't any evidence that they are in danger of catching homosexuality. But, more significantly, these are comments by a legislator that are based on his religious indoctrination –one that is contrary to the teachings of Christ (either the actual or the mythical).

 

This conclusion can easily be drawn from the fact that, other than biblical objection, there is absolutely no reason to oppose homosexuality of others that has any basis in logic. Talton's own religious agenda is evident in other aspects of his homogenized church/state position:

originally posted by ]Texas Monthly, 2003

Talton once dominated a committee hearing for around 45 minutes, holding forth on his support of the death penalty and its biblical origins. "None of the books of the Bible do away with capital punishment," he said. "Some say that the government slayed Jesus. That is not where it came from and why." He talked about how God punishes the wicked and how one of the ways he does so is by death. When a witness tried to disagree, he said, "I'll be glad to go and get my Bible on my desk and show it to you."

Even as an atheist, the teachings of the alleged Christ make sense to me:

Originally posted by the alleged "Christ"

Whoever loves God must also love his brother

(1 John 4: 20-21). Therefore, I say to you all:

 

Feed the hungry.

Give drink to the thirsty.

Clothe the naked.

 

Shelter the homeless.

Visit the sick.

Visit the imprisoned.

Bury the dead.

 

Counsel the doubtful,

Instruct the ignorant,

Admonish the sinner,

Forgive injuries,

Bear wrong patiently,

Pray for the living,

Pray for the dead.

 

.

Love your enemies; pray for those who persecute you; do good to those

who hate you. If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him

something to drink. Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good

(Rom. 12:17-21). Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult. Return a

blessing instead.

This is human kindness. I get it. I understand it. I even believe it up to the point where Christianity involves invisible deities that are omniscient/omnipotent. Common sense tells us the world would be more habitable if its residents treated each other as the alleged Christ taught.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. Even in a society (the United States) where the vast majority consider themselves to be Christians.

 

Is Robert Talton (and others like him) Christian?

 

 

One of the myths that many proponents of anti-gay legislation have is the assumption that homosexuals are less likely to be monogamous than heterosexuals and that they may not even want to be monogamous.

 

Studies of gay and lesbian attitudes regarding healthy relationships indicate that they desire the same types of relationships that heterosexuals want: enduring, loving, dedicated, loyal, etc (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Bell, Alan; Weinberg, Martin; and Hammersmith, S. K., 1981). Many state that they want to have families and, considering the number of adoptable children in the world, this is a realistic goal. Studies also show that steady, monogamous relationships exist among gays and lesbians (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Jay & Young, 1997; Peplau & Cochran, 1981). In these studies, up to 60% of the gay men surveyed stated that they were in monogamous relationships and up to 80% of the women.

 

I'll agree that these studies don't speak for the entire United States homosexual population, and they varied somewhat with results, but the fact that in each study somewhere around half of those surveyed responded with the desire for monogamous relationships is suggestive that the pattern for the desire for monogamy is significant among the homosexual population.

 

I'll also agree that neither of these studies speak for the success of the monogamy goal among homosexuals. But a lack of marriage records and complete openness of homosexual relationships makes this difficult data to collect. Some studies have discovered, however, that homosexual couples exist that have been together for 20 years or more and that these types of relationships are not uncommon (McWhirter & Mattison, 1984; Silverstein, 1991).

 

 

The neo-Christian Agenda

 

What is a "neo-Christian?" Simply put, it is the new Christian of modernity that thinks in terms of wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality rather than focus on What Would Jesus Do? They seek power and status rather than peace and love. They say "love the sinner, hate the sin," but this is their hypocrisy because their actions say "hate the sin, the sinner, anyone who defends the sinner, etc."

 

The neo-Christian agenda is based on two things: 1) unfounded fear; and 2) the desire for cult leaders of neo-Christian churches to maintain power and wealth.

 

Unfounded Fear

Christian fundamentalists like Talton are quick to cite biblical passages in both the OT and NT which denounce homosexuality. Yet they ignore those passages which run contrary to their hatred.

. Originally posted by Matt. 22:37-40

If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. One who has no love for his brother whom he sees cannot love God whom he does not see.

Neo-Christian fundamentalists justify their hatred and bigotry against homosexuals several ways, two of which are to deny that they "hate" homosexuals and to simply state that homosexuals aren't their "brothers."

 

The former denial is a thin veil of deception, since it's clear that the homosexual population makes up a small fraction of society while other, equally "sinful," behaviors are present in a large proportion of society, including among those that call themselves "Christian." These behaviors include everything from adultery to theft to alcohol abuse. Why do fundamental Christian cults concentrate on the behaviors of a small fraction of society while all but ignoring the behaviors of the vast majority of society?

 

Annette Lawson, the author of Adultery (1989) writes, "[t]he various researchers arrive at a general consensus…suggesting that above one-quarter to about one-half of married women have at least one lover after they are married in any given marriage. Married men probably still stray more often than married women—perhaps from 50 percent to 65 percent by the age of forty." Why then don't the Christian cults place more emphasis on eradicating adultery than homosexuality since less than 2.5% of the U.S. population is estimated to be homosexual?

 

The answer isn't related to the religious problem that homosexuality presents for Christianity. It's the unfounded fear that becomes associated with the stigma of the homosexual. Christians and even non-Christians often fear that homosexuality can spread as if it were some disease or plague.

 

Their homophobia manifests itself frequently as does their hatred of the homosexual. Neo-Christians frequently accuse others of being homosexual, as if the description were a slur, reminiscent of "nigger."

originally posted by Benny Hinn , Orlando Christian Center, 12/31/89. "The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid-90’s, about ’94, ’95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America."

Originally posted by "Dr." Laura "A huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys."

Originally posted by Rev. Fred Phelps "God doesn't hate them because they're fags; they're fags because God hates them."

Originally Posted by Robert Knight, WorldNetDaily.com "[Demand] that schools stop promoting "safe sex" and homosexuality in the name of "AIDS education" or "safe schools." These are recruitment schemes into early sex and homosexuality, with documented, ghastly results."

These quotes demonstrate the fear and hatred that neo-Christians have for the statistically very few homosexuals that reside in the United States compared to the number of adulterers and thieves.

 

Power and Wealth

 

The creation of an "enemy" or an "other" is a unifying force for any culture. The United States has done it since the Revolution, marginalizing the Native American, the Mexican, the Cuban, Caribbean Islanders, Inuits, Immigrants from Japan and China, and, of course, blacks. These Americans got the blame for a variety of behaviors and conditions and were, at various times, confined to reservations, camps, prisons, and the backs of buses and theaters.

 

Having an other unifies the majority and creates solidarity. Cultures have used the other method of unification and nationalism for at least as long as writing has existed.

 

Nationalism and solidarity of a nation-state's citizens has the tendency to ensure the power of the leadership as citizens abandon critical thinking in favor of loyalty to the state. This is clear even in the current administration as Bush's popularity was at it's all time high just after 9/11 –a popularity that steadily declined in the years following as the threat of terrorism became less scary.

 

The fundamentalist religious leaders of neo-Christian cults in the United States use the same tactics in their quest to maintain power and subsequent wealth. By directing hatred of their followers to a small homosexual minority (one that they perhaps felt would be too small to fight back), these leaders unify current members and encourage increased membership as a means to belong to a group that professes to have the best interest of America at heart. This interest is often professed through fabricated and distorted claims as well as by seeding hatred among less-informed heterosexuals who believe their claims that the homosexual is a club that is attempting to increase its membership by recruiting the children of America; that homosexuality is the cause of HIV/AIDS; that homosexuality will mean the demise of the so-called "traditional family" in the United States; etc.

 

Overall, I suspect that there is a feedback loop between the unifying use of an other and the unfounded fear of the homosexual. Gay marriage is the ultimate bitch slap to the so-called religious right in the United States, since fundamentalists erroneously believe that marriage is a religious institution only and should not be left to secular society to decide who enters legal commitment contracts with their relationships. Gay marriage would suddenly allow homosexual couples to adopt children. Such an act would create a membership dilemma for the cults that fear homosexuality, because these children would either be raised Christian or they wouldn't. If they were to be raised Christian (a great many homosexuals believe in the Christian religion), then the parents would have to be allowed to participate in their indoctrination (or, as believers like to say, "education"). This would then force them to allow the very people they fear into the church. Christian cult leaders would then have to admit they were wrong; retract long-standing assumptions and distortions of the homosexual lifestyle (that it is contagious; the cause of HIV/AIDS; etc.).

 

Conclusion

 

Robert Talton and his ilk are refusing to acknowledge that the fears and taboos of cultures from four to two thousand years before present are not relative to modernity.

 

Talton's information and data about homosexuality are incomplete, distorted, out-of-context, without valid sources, and, on occasion, even fabricated. His intent isn't on "saving the children" (a truly Christian sentiment), but rather on spreading the propaganda and myths of homosexuality in an effort to solidify the other in the minds of followers and voters; to perpetuate the stigma of fear and hatred rather than to progress and truly seek peace as a real Christian might.

 

The stand on homosexuality that neo-Christian legislators and cult leaders like Talton take is illogical given the lack of attention and significance on more frequent and serious "sins" of Christianity, such as adultery and theft. Issues like homosexuality and abortion serve the purpose of creating "Wedge Issues" among the general populace and amount only to hatred and, often, violence. They don't serve the purpose of spreading the "love of Christ" or live up to the spirit of the teachings of Christ (assuming that he existed).

 

I ask you: "They call this Christian?"

 

References

 

Bell, Alan, and Weinberg, Martin. Homosexualities. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.

 

Bell, Alan; Weinberg, Martin; and Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

 

Jay, K., and Young, A. (1977). The Gay Report, Simon and Schuster, New York.

 

Lawson, Annette (1989). Adultery, New York: Basic Books.

 

McWhirter, D. P., & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

 

Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1981). Value orientations in the intimate relationships of gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(3), 1-9.

 

Silverstein, C . (Ed.). (1991). Gays, lesbians, and their therapists: Studies in psychotherapy. New York: W.W. Norton.

[SkinWalker]

Also rather than turn this into a thread of one-liners getting laughs about "Texas" and the bigottry/hatred that exists there (and inexplicably doesn't exist in your own states?), let's have a discussion.

 

I challenge all those that made a post of a few lines about ***** Texas to actually post something of substance

[toms]

ok, lets say i accepted that homosexuality was wrong, and homosexuals were somehow lesser humans.

 

Would it be better for a child to be left in an orphanage or childrens home, or to be brought up in a less than ideal home?

 

I'd say the latter. Unless the parents are abusing or neglecting the child it has to be better than being left in a home.

 

What they SHOULD do is bring in a law to stop muslim parents adopting good american children! Otherwise they will corrupt them and turn them into america hating terrorist supporters!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

21 posts including this one and everyone agrees. Where are the homphobes when we actually need them:rolleyes: ?

 

This forum has been sort of quiet lately...

[ET Warrior]

The one argument I hear all the time is "Just think how you'd feel being raised with two dads? How much torture would you get on the playground"

 

Well that of course depends on if the other children were raised by tolerant parents who taught their childrence acceptance of others or raised them to be bigots.

 

FURTHERMORE, it seems to me that it would be vastly greater to be able to say you have two fathers than to say you have no parents.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Norwegian kids who live with two same-sex parents get no more "torture on the playground" than adopted kids of a different skin colour or whatever. Which equals zero.

 

Kids aren't homophobes or racists. At 3, they're smart enough to realize that job can be left to the true children like Bush and "Reverend" Phelps;) .

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

The one argument I hear all the time is "Just think how you'd feel being raised with two dads? How much torture would you get on the playground"

 

As a youth, I used to hear that argument quite often.

 

Only, instead of "two dads" or "two moms," it was "think of how the other kids will torture him/her on the playground when they find out that one parent is black and the other white!"

 

It turned out that kids "on the playground" were better stewards of social progress than the adults with regard to race. Sure, there was some ugliness towards mixed race kids... but it was short lived. Most kids don't give a crap about adult prejudices... they have their own.