Posted on 02/17/2006 7:04:20 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
Judge: Lesbian couple can be foster parents By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star
Missouri cannot block an openly gay Kansas City woman’s efforts to become a foster parent because of her sexual orientation, a Jackson County judge ruled today.
In her decision, Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled the state arbitrarily denied Lisa Johnston’s petition to become a foster parent because she is a lesbian.
Johnston and partner Dawn Roginski sought to become foster parents in 2003, but their efforts were stymied by an unwritten state social services policy prohibiting gays from becoming foster parents.
The state argued that Johnston lacked the “reputable character” required by state guidelines for approving foster parents because she was in violation of Missouri’s anti-sodomy law.
Midkiff dismissed the argument, citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that found a similar law in Texas to be unconstitutional. If the sodomy law was unenforceable, Midkiff ruled, Missouri had no legal basis for denying Johnston’s application. Johnston and Roginiski were found to be exceptional candidates otherwise by the state.
“I’m overwhelmed with joy,” said Johnston, who had yet to discuss the ruling with her attorney. “I feel like we were heard.”
The American Civil Liberties Union had taken up Johnston’s case.
Show me some data that children of homosexuals grow up to be homosexuals, or that children of homosexuals suffer from abuse.
Okay...The following is a list of various sources that demonstration homosexual adoption is not healthy for children:
There are no such studies. From Satinover's The Gay Gene?:
I think we were talking about foster children, not adoption, although the term adoption may have been brought up. I think children should be adopted by married couples. I think being adopted by a single parent or a gay couple should be a last resort and in any case, the parents should be reviewed very carefully and subjected to lengthy interviews and background checks. If you had a small child no one wanted I think a gay couple is probably a better alternative to an institution. While I find the idea of a single woman or a lesbian couple getting artificially inseminated and having children a thoughtless and self centered act, there is probably nothing that can be done to stop it. I suppose in 20 years we will have plenty of case studies to prove the point one way or another.
I never used the word gene. I don't believe there is a homosexual gene either. I think born that way means that for whatever reason they are going to be gay. Some people take their first drink and become alcoholic immediately. Others drink their whole lives and never get addicted. It's not a gene, at least not that has been found yet. I don't think there is a gene for heterosexuality either, is there?
That is too bad that you your illness is preventing you from adopting. Anybody that spends 11 years trying to adopt obviously wants it pretty bad. I hope that you are fulfilled in other ways. God has a plan for you and all of us. Take care.
If gays can become ex-gay, the proponents of the born that way theory have nothing to stand on.
The APA does all it can to block reorientation/reparative organizations such as NARTH, and this due to homosexual activism. Here's a quite by Simon LeVay that is quite revealing:
Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.I have LeVay's book and the quote is in context.Source: Simon LeVay, Queer Science, MIT Press, 1996, p. 224
The links I provided covered foster children, foster parenting, child abuse and gay adoption. You asked for:
data that children of homosexuals grow up to be homosexuals, or that children of homosexuals suffer from abuseI provided the data you requested but you are now changing the subject.
there are the other studies that people are born homosexual and that it is most likely geneticand now you are saying:
I never used the word gene. I don't believe there is a homosexual gene eitherI don't think there is a gene for heterosexuality either, is there?
Homosexual radicals have insisted for decades a gay gene exists and yet not a single piece of evidence supports their claim. That's why we've shown their statement to be what it is, completely unsubstantiated.
Let me refer to your post #96:
You homosexual haters are like children. As soon as you are challenged you resort to name calling and claiming you don't need to prove anything because you just know it is true. You say my opinion is contraty to reality. Ok, prove the reality. Show me some date that children of homosexuals grow up to be homosexuals, or that children of homosexuals suffer from abuse. There are thousands of gay couples out there with children and there is not a single bit of data you can point to that shows any greater degree of abuse among gays than among straights. You are so full of hate and rage at homosexuals you can't think straight.
--you posted as a leftist who did know something about me -now, you appear to attempt a backtrack and possible regrouping from your quite emotional and vitriolic defense of the homosexual agenda? However, I would say it is a little late -you let your leftist hair down -the cat is out of the bag as far as any third party observer reading this exchange would surely recognize. You have objectively shown your cards -the cards of an activist promoting the homosexualization of society right here on FR...
But, it never occured to me that in the middle of the debate you would suddenly step in and decide I needed to be categorized and dismissed simply because you all didn't agree with me.
As to defending our rights, our constitution, and our traditional way of life. I fought in Vietnam, was deeply involved in the first Afghan war against the Soviets and just returned home after a year in Iraq. In all three cases I left my family behind and took significant risks to defend this country. So, I have spent the greater part of my life making sacrifices for what I believe in, and I think I have a right to express my point of view. You can disagree with me, and I hope that when you do we can engage in a debate about it and I will accept that it will sometimes slide into personal attacks on both sides. It's a passionate issue.
Do you want sympathy and understanding or do you attempt to moral relatively argue by juxtaposing good with bad and implying that you have a right to promote bad because you did some good. -how about not interjecting issues not directly related to the topic -how about dealing directly with the topic on point and avoiding further 'spin' --how about recognizing reality -how about sympathy for the innocent children you advocate placing with homosexuals playing house -regardless what you may or may not be or have or have not done good or bad? Murtha was a veteran - I am a vetran -so what when the issue is the homosexualization of society? You mention rights and opinions. On this issue -your opinion is politically impotent-- as to rights and by implication homosexual rights; there are no homosexual rights -there are human rights absolutely based regardless sexual acrobatics one chooses to engage in NOT because of sexual acrobatics chosen. -- LOL
Stop crying, set aside your tissues, and face reality -I have some news for you -- anyone able can marry the opposite sex and can procreate if they really want children -there is no right to 'own' or raise children. The fabricated 'rights' of leftists that you champion in this discussion only further the leftist agenda to homosexualize society. YES, I have some news for you: The push for fabricated 'rights' spearheaded by organizations such as the communist ACLU and imposed by judicial fiat do not take take precedence over the rights of children as you suggest.
So, I suggest if you think I am a leftist troll you simply send my postings to the founder of FR and have me banned. If you prefer that all debate contrary to your view point be banned, then have me banned.
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Contrasting the agenda comprising your postings on the issue of the homosexualization of society objectively with the founders statement places you at odds with FR policy and in opposition to the many FR members that comprise the homosexual agenda pinglist. Members on the homosexual agenda pinglist are not homosexual haters -they (we) actively oppose what you promote right here on FR. On the issue of the homosexualization of society, members that comprise the homosexual agenda pinglist oppose on FR what you actively support -we respect the policy of FR and attempt to remain within it -you disregard it and push a leftist agenda that you now admit you support. You rightly state reality here -the reality that you should accept --cease posting your liberal talking points or you will eventually be zotted and rightly so... As you imply, I can do as I wish regardless your machinations -- I will do so...
Do not be sad -there is a place you can promote your ideas on this issue -politically there is the dummycrat party -for discussion and homosexual agenda banter -try DU...
That is because there are two sides to this discussion. You who believe there are legitimate studies that show homosexuality is a deviance and that homosexuals are converted to homosexuality in their youth and come to it by a rational decision.
Straw man. No one has said or claimed that anyone is converted to homosexuality by a rational decision. You know that you are misrepresenting the position of myself, Scripter and the experts in the articles he links to.
Caught you there.
Then there are the other studies that people are born homosexual and that it is most likely genetic and they are entitled to all the benefits and rights of married couples.
Oh, really? And just where are these studies? I have repeatedly and Scripter has repeatedly asked you to provide links to these studies. Where are your links?
Crickets chirping.
Perhaps it is a combination of the two. But, that aside.
Oh, maybe this, perhaps that. You can "put it aside" because you cannot provide any evidence to support your position. I don't want to put it aside. I want to see your evidence.
You and I may not like it, but they have done nothing illegal or immoral in following the American way of bringing about change.
You may not like it? That's not what you said yesterday. Yesterday you said that I was a hater and a bigot, that there is no gay agenda, and if there is, you support it. Additionally, the "nothing immoral" is surely laughable. Gay bath houses? Bug chasers? Gay Pride parades with public anal sex, nudity, and little boys on chains pulled by NAMBLA guys in leather jockstraps?
Illegal? What about ACT-UP and other guys pouring tainted AIDS blood, feces and urine in churches? What about homosexuals purposely donating blood and lying about it? What about homosexuals actively pursuing underage boys?
I believe most people in this country have accepted homosexuals for who they are.
This is merely your wishful thinking, and it is also a tactic described in "After The Ball - the Overhauling of Straight America". If this were so, why has every single state voted to protect marriage? Why are the numbers of people who consider homosexuality wrong increasing?
My point was, we should not be endorsing any government that feels it is ok to bar public expression. The discussion degenerated from there.
No, your point is that homosexuality is normal, natural, moral and we are bigots and haters. Now you're back pedaling. We can all read what you've been saying. It's crystal clear that you're promoting the "gay" agenda - you stated yourself that the fedgov is actively recruiting homosexual employees, and that you are a gov't recruiter. Very telling.
No one forced you to respond to me. If I am that wacked out in my opinions why do you bother?
I bother because I care about the truth. When I see lies presented as fact, baseless opinions presented as truth, it is my duty to state the truth. If one person can be saved from a life of homosexuality due to reading the truth, my purpose is served.
If I was the first to call names it was not intentional and I apologize.
False after the fact apologies will get you nowhere. And how can name calling be unintentional? Your fingers typed without your knowledge or consent?
On the other hand, twice now during this discussion I have been quoted the rules of FR as if somehow my opinions don't belong here and I should go away because I don't toe some party line.
FR is a private website and the owner has rules about what he wants going on here. You don't like the rules, that's your business.
I have read postings by conservatives who are gay, atheist, and even libertarians who probably are lot closer to my opinion than yours. Are they also not allowed to express their opinions?
It's obvious to anyone who spends time on FR that a huge latitude of opinions are tolerated here. But professional liberal activists who are here solely to promote leftist agenda (such as the ones DBeers quoted the owner, Jim Robinson, stating are not welcome) are in the wrong place. It's not my opinion, it's the owner's.
If I am a professional liberal activist then why do you spend so much time responding to my notes. Why am I so important to you? Why don't you send all my postings to the Administrator and have me banned. You have made it clear you don't think I belong here because I disagree with you. Well, go ahead, have me banned. Oh I know, those aren't your rules, those are the teachers...er the founders. Ok, you've made your point. You "caught me there," and you can hear "crickets chirping." Why do I feel like I am in a college frat debating the house geek?
Thanks for a good laugh. I don't make rules here, I don't "enforce" rules here. I'm just a lowly peon who gets to post my comments like anyone else.
As I said above, my purpose here is to defeat leftist lies.
And your purpose?
BTW, you still haven't posted one link, one quote from any study or research that supports anything you've said. I caught you in making a typical straw man arugment, a classic homosexual agenda tactic, and I merely pointed that out.
Feel free to support your opinion with scientific research, be my guest. Scripter's done our side. Why not defeat his arguments with some factual data? We're all ears. So to speak.
My purpose is just to read some interesting posts, get a laugh now and then, and sometimes engage in debate with intelligent people. I find that sometimes the debates are instructive since having to state what I believe in clear terms forces me to think about what I really believe. Further, I have on occasion been challenged or shown a side of an argument I haven't considered and it forces me to change my perspective. This is all within the broader conservative umbrella, because on virtually every subject save apparently this one, I am very conservative. On the other hand, within my circle of conservative friends, the gay issue is non-existent. We can rant and rave about abortion, gun control, Bill Clinton, etc, but when it comes to homosexuals most just shrug their shoulders. I don't think it is overarching an issue to most conservatives as it seems to be for you.
As to why I won't post opposing studies: first, I am not passionate about this subject enough to take the time. Second, I don't believe the studies supporting the gay point of view anymore than you do. They have a very definite point of view and they are going to produce studies that support that. It's what every political lobby group does. The web site you directed me to was good. In fact, I was in strong agreement with the authors perspective on it. But, even he said his article dealt in generalities and one could not make universal claims about homosexuality.
My wife is in the theatre production business so I socialize with a lot of gay people and have become friends with several. Some even to the point where I could ask them questions that would be innapropriate otherwise. A question I have always asked was when did they realize they were gay. It's a question they can never answer because in their minds they were always different and it wasn't until they reached puberty and the hormones kicked in that they realized they were more interested in men. Now, the article from the website was quite enlightening because he pointed out that homosexuals may have certain traits that can be identified at a young age, and I think that is somewhat the same as what my gay friends have told me. They always felt like outsiders and were generally not attracted to the kinds of activities normal boys played. I suppose the question is, is their homosexuality simply there and for the most part irreversible. I happen to think that for the most part that is the case. The gay men I know tell me they absolutely never have felt any sexual desire for women. It's probably the same way a heterosexual male can't imagine sexual feelings for a man. So, I wonder, is it any more possible to turn an adult homosexual into a heterosexual that it is to turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. I don't know about anyone else, but for me that would be impossible. I realize all of this is purely anecdotal, but sometimes anecdotal can be enlightening.
Some ex-gays say the same thing: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388051/posts?page=24#24
Some ex-gays on this forum will tell you the same thing.
Here's a list of places homosexuals can get help. Check out the websites for more testimonials.
Abiding Truth
Becoming Real
Choice 4 Truth
Christians No Longer Gay Living For God
Courage
Courage Online
Desert Stream
Eagles Wings Ministry
Exodus
Find Out
Gay to Straight
Help for Jewish Homosexuals That is Consistent with Torah Principles
Homosexuality and Gender
JONAH
Living Hope
Living Stones Ministries
Love Won Out
Matthew Manning
NARTH
National Listing of Help
New Hope Ministries
One By One
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
People Can Change
Portland Fellowship
Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality
Realty Resources
Regeneration Books
Stephen Bennett Ministries
Transforming Congregations
Witness Ministries
Ok, this will open another can of worms, but I just can't help myself. Testimonials are the worst kind of evidence to present in order to prove something works. The organizations presenting the testimonials have a vested interest in showing it can be done. It's very much like any major drug or alcohol treatment center. They will give you all kinds of testimonials about how many people left the place clean and sober never to drink again, when the actual rate of long term sobriety is on the order of 30 percent. I have heard men and women on tv claim they were converted by some of these ministries and I believe them. I have also heard some say they left convinced they had converted only to feel the urges come back in a few months and go back to the lifestyle. Do you have any studies that show the long term success of these programs? Frankly, I think it is a lot of wishful thinking, but if homosexuals have a desire to be straight they should be afforded every opportunity to try, and I have nothing but praise for the the organizations you listed for putting their money where their mouth is and not just condeming the homosexuals as sinners.
And yet that's all the evidence anybody has when they claim to be gay. The same evidence exists for gays and ex-gays...it's their testimony. Some people choose to believe one group over the other and they should ask themselves why. The Queer by Choice folks definitely choose to be gay.
I'm not sure what you mean by "claim to be gay." You are gay or you are not gay. I don't think many people falsely claim to be gay. As to the website. By its own definition it is radical and is trying to convince people that choosing to be gay is both possible and desirable. I can't accept that being gay, except in a few rare cases, is something someone does by rational choice. I remember when I first started recognizing that girls were exciting. There is no way in the world anyone could have dissuaded me from the drive to pursue girls and convince me I should go after boys. It was an overwhelming urge which I think every heterosexual man can attest to.
There is no such thing as being 'gay'. It is not a characteristic it is a mental disease
I can't accept that being gay, except in a few rare cases, is something someone does by rational choice.
Exactly correct. No one who is rational can claim to be 'gay' as the activity that defines 'gay' is always the result of mental illness
There is no way in the world anyone could have dissuaded me from the drive to pursue girls and convince me I should go after boys.
All it takes is a program of desensitization followed by molestation. First get the recruit accustomed to the idea that homosexual sex is not gross and disgusting (as the recruit instinctively knows it to be) then seduce/molest.
Kids without good relationships with their fathers are particularly susceptible to this approach. Boys need adult male affection/acceptance. If they don't get it from their fathers (or other trusted, moral, adult males) then they are open to almost anything that comes along that will give them that male acceptance
It was an overwhelming urge which I think every heterosexual man can attest to
Biology is a powerful driver. Man fits woman. Man doesn't fit man
(BTW, every human is heterosexual, some are just mentally ill)
"Kids without good relationships with their fathers are particularly susceptible to this approach. Boys need adult male affection/acceptance. If they don't get it from their fathers (or other trusted, moral, adult males) then they are open to almost anything that comes along that will give them that male acceptance."
Add to that the onslaught from the NEA, GLSEN, media of all kinds, and adult homosexuals in their lives, and many succumb.
Your comments are spot on, and Casloy is backtracking all over the place. Like a squid or something. His comments are 100% dishonest, he pretends he didn't say what he said, and his sole purpose in commenting is to make those of us who tell the truth about homosexuality look "mean". He's a lying sack.
I meant exactly what I said. The only evidence somebody has when they claim to be gay is their claim. That is, their testimony. It's the same evidence ex-gays have, their testimony.
As I posted earlier, there's a website called Queer By Choice and they claim to make up 8% of the gay population. They admit to choosing the gay lifestyle.
In an appearance before the Davis City, California City Council in 1980, Homosexual activist Kathy McDevitt said:
"We finally realize that recruitment is the only answer...lesbian goals must be to recruit more lesbians."In their own words, some choose the gay lifestyle and some try to recruit others.
When somebody chooses to believe the testimony of gays over the testimony of ex-gays, they should ask themselves why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.