Posted on 04/21/2005 7:46:17 AM PDT by worldclass
The Texas Legislature is considering legislation that would ban homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents. If the legislation is enacted, Texas would be the only state in the nation with such a restriction.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
At this point, it seems more of a bill to prevent [...] damned gay people from having "special" rights as opposed to protecting the children. I am so tired of other people judging others...seems like there are a lot of people throwing stones who shouldn't be... -TheSuaveOne
I would have to examine closely the details of the amendment to make a judgement, but based on this piece, I tend to think the amendment goes too far, and it sounds unlikely to be in Texas' adoption reform law when it finally passes anyway.
That said, I am prepared to give the legislators the benefit of the doubt that their hearts are in the right place and they wish to amplify the probability that children will be adopted into traditional families, a goal I certainly agree with.
With regard to judging others, I think it is ridiculous to talk about not judging others. Of course we do, everyone does. We must judge people on their behavior. I would agree with unfounded judgements based on the color of someone's skin, for example. But there is logic to preferring married man-woman couples.
So in other words it shouldn't be done if homosexuals are going to object?
This is not governance it is demagoguery.
Demagoguery consists primarily in making unfounded accusations against the motivations of one's opponents, instead of debating the actual issues. Now guess who on this thread is doing that?
No, demagoguery is making use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
There is a little demagoguery in all politics. Despite what I wrote above about giving the benefit of the doubt, I would not be surprised if legislators were seeking to benefit from the publicity of opposing the unpopular liberal "homosexual rights" agenda.
Specifically passing a law banning "Gay couples" from adopting when just wording it as "non-married couples" would do makes me charge the law makers with demagoguery and baiting.
"That said, I am prepared to give the legislators the benefit of the doubt that their hearts are in the right place"
Yes, because of all the past examples of how politicians have done for the common good of man as opposed to doing for themselves or for the lobby that has paid them the most.
"But there is logic to preferring married man-woman couples."
Maybe to people with closed minds...la
There's no such thing as a homosexual spouse.
That is the correct preference.
Also, since Texas bans Gay marriage - how can "gay couples" adopt anyway? In all probablility this law is a redundancy but helps get the gay haters all worked up which opens wallets.
There are plenty of popular prejudices nowadays against anyone who'd say anything that could possibly put homosexuals in a bad light. It's become generally verboten.
As for "false promises", what false promises have the Texas legislators made?
Maybe to people with closed minds...la
That is not an argument. Do you similarly dismiss reasoned arguments against the current push by judges to redefine gender out of marriage? I suggest engaging the arguments.
Ok wrong terminology then
What you're saying is that you'd prefer it to say "non-married couples". But the people of Texas apparently don't. Do you make the charge of "demagoguery" whenever a legislature passes a law you disagree with, or could it simply be that it's carrying out the sober will of its constituents, and that they happen to disagree with you?
For example instead of of saying homosexual marriage is banned - just pass a law saying same sex marriage is banned.
In other words WE win when we IGNORE homos and refuse to grant them status under law (against or for them) beyond the status of individuals - like we all are individuals.
Sadly, many get invested in an us vs them battle which distracts us from good legislation.
Mistake!. I read a report a couple of months ago. Batering is more common in percentage in homosexual households. And promiscuity a whole lot more. I don't think it's a good idea for a child to see from such a tender age lovers coming in and out of the bedroom or hearing "noises".
yes there are exceptions
Those are both the same thing. Are you saying that the problem is merely with the way legislation is worded?
Anyway, I'm not sure I buy the theory that the way to fight the homosexual agenda is to just ignore them. They can't be ignored; they won't allow it. Their whole goal is to be in everybody's face. I mean, do you think their movement considered it a defeat when SCOTUS struck down that Texas law in Lawrence?
Umm, if you say so...
Really? Then there is something elusive going on in those households. It's just against common sense for communication to be more difficult between like people.
I think that having a biological kid is the only thing in this country for which you don't have to get a license or something like that. Nothing you can do about it!.
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.