Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050420/ts_alt_afp/usjusticegays_050420173703

Wed Apr 20, 1:37 PM ET
The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill banning homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals from being foster parents.

If the bill gains approval from the Texas Senate, the state will be allowed to investigate the backgrounds of current foster parents and remove children living in non-heterosexual households.

All future foster parents will be required to disclose their sexual preference on an application form, a legislative aide said.

The move was denounced by local activists.

"More than 43,000 gay and lesbian couples in Texas are forming families and raising children, and this attack on LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) Texans will tear apart our families and remove our children from loving, stable families," the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas said in a statement.

"In an already over-burdened foster care system, the effect of reducing the pool of foster parents does nothing to protect Texas children," it added.

 

[Baconäger]

I wouldn't want to grow up with gay foster parents.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

This issue is much more tricky than the "can gays get married" issue.

Anyone here that is Ok with Gay marriage against this? I don't really care what other people get up to, but I really would have disliked Having 2 dads I think, just because of the beatings that would be hard to avoid.

 

[automagnus]

I wouldn't want to grow up with gay foster parents.

But your not an orphan(i hope not), these kids have no one.

 

[Baconäger]

I'd rather have no one.

 

[norinrad21]

I wouldn't want to grow up with gay foster parents.

I guess you'd rather grow up in an abusive home with a drunken dad who beats the shit out of you whenever he returns from a night out with the good old boys right?

Just because both parents are gay doesn't mean the kid will end up gay too

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I'd rather have no one.

damn you are serious about this issue

I dunno I would kinda agree to a degree, I would not want to grow up like that.
But I am not sure it would harm kids to have gay parents at least they would grow-up a bit more tolerant than I am.

 

[galeninjapan]

I personaly would not want gay parants, nor do I think it is Gay foster parants or Abusive parants. There are non abusive non gay people.

 

[Baconäger]

Just because both parents are gay doesn't mean the kid will end up gay too

I don't recall saying otherwise.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Let's take kids away from what might be really good homes! If we don't, they might catch THE GAY, or even worse, become DEMOCRATS and entertain the feminist-atheist-homosexual agenda that will surely be the downfall of our society until we're raptured away tomorrow.

Instead, we can place them in state-run facilities were our loving caretakers can give them the ten minutes of heterosexual-minded nuturing they require each day to grow up into strong Americans.

 

[levious]

I'm glad bacon and tehpirate are intelligent enough to cut past the bs and get to the real core issues here. It's not about providing loving supportive homes for orphans, it's about avoiding those uncomfortable situations... you know, like when you're at a bar and that dude next to you smiles too much and has an immaculately ironed shirt and you can't enjoy yourself cause you're too busy wondering if he's thinking about anal sex right now... how can we expect children to grow up like that?

on topic though, this wouldn't affect biological parents with a same sex partner would it?

 

[Spencerr]

As an adopted child, I say if the parents pass all the other background checks and things like that, there's no reason but bigotry to stop them from adopting.

 

[Fragamemnon]

As an adopted child as well, I agree.

Yes, growing up in a same-sex household would be tough. So would growing up in a interracial household. However, it will only be tough until society gets used to it. Eventually it'll be accepted as norm and moral conservatives will go and demonize something else.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

This bill is just really sad the more I think about it.
Texas a whole other country

 

[ManDudeChild]

I don't recall saying otherwise.

You don't have to type what you already said with your original post. I've talked to many people that are against homosexual marrage, adopting, showing of emotion in public areas, etc. Most seem to deny that it isn't fear of them or children catching "The Gay," but through what they don't say it's shown that it is. I mean children aren't going to think they should be gay if they're raised by a couple, nor will they start early stages of "The Gay" from seeing a couple hold hands in a park or something. I mean seriously, aren't there far more pressing things to deal with than if two consenting, provided they're good parents, adults adopt a child?

 

[Spencerr]

I'm sad I have to go to my programming class now, I have a feeling I'm going to miss a debate I want to be a part of.

 

[galeninjapan]

This bill is just really sad the more I think about it.
Texas a whole other country

ya damn right it is, and stay out of it. We like our non-gay BBQ and our non-gay illegal immigrants.

Spoiler

I keed I keed

 

[tedtropy]

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn. I mean, a kid can be just as fucked up if they are raised by a man and woman (dad comes home to beat on kids drunk, beats wife;etc), and from what I've heard and seen from people I know who DO have gay foster parents (and yes i'm from Texas), they turned out just as fine if not better than kids who grew up with heterosexual parents. Goddamn my home state is so embarassing.

And that is why we fear it. We don't want a new generation of super kids with metrosexual sensibilities stealing all our cowgirls. YEEEE HAWWW and etc.

 

[akascream]

The gay movement will never figure out that this is about the kids and not them. But I think the gay movement is pretty selfish all around, so this is no suprise.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

"Motherless"

 

[tedtropy]

It's true that Texas acts like it's still it's own country though. We even said the Texas state pledge in HS, what the fuck? Why do we have to say that?

Because Texas has always been incredibly big (hur hur, much like the state) on its sovranty. There's plenty of, no doubt, interesting historical and antiquated reasons behind that sort of thinking, but I doubt it's anything that's going to change soon.

 

[Mercury Fred]

The gay movement will never figure out that this is about the kids and not them. But I think the gay movement is pretty selfish all around, so this is no suprise.

Yes, it's selfish to take in foster kids. It's selfish to spend your time, money and energy trying to take care of kids that have been abandoned, orphaned, abused or otherwise given the shaft by caring, loving selfless heterosexual society.

*Edit
And fucking pardon me for being so selfish as to not want to get fired from my job, denied housing or being jailed for loving someone of the same sex.

Akascream, your post is literally sickening.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

We all could learn to be more tolerant.

The whole this is stupid, I was raised around a community who preached gay = evil
I have met some very evil heterosexuals

Texas should be banned from voting Mexico can have them
Living in Texas for a bit it sure is a strange place

 

[akascream]

Because Texas has always been incredibly big (hur hur, much like the state) on its sovranty. There's plenty of, no doubt, interesting historical and antiquated reasons behind that sort of thinking, but I doubt it's anything that's going to change soon.

The concept of state vs federal control is hardly new, and the balance, like many things in our system, is healthy. It's amazing some people forget this, especially considering our civil war was fought over it, and ultimately confused with a more pressing human rights issue.

 

[akascream]

Yes, it's selfish to take in foster kids. It's selfish to spend your time, money and energy trying to take care of kids that have been abandoned, orphaned, abused or otherwise given the shaft by caring, loving selfless heterosexual society.

It's selfish to assume your gay lifestyle has no effect on a child. If gays were more concerned about the welfare of abandoned children, and less about 'wanting a toy they don't have', I think healthy debate on the subject would be more clear. As opposed to some pretty harsh reactions as seen above.

 

[Mercury Fred]

It's selfish to assume your gay lifestyle has no effect on a child.

First, there's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." There are gay people, and such people have lives, all sorts of lives that are as wide ranging as those of straight people.

If gays were more concerned about the welfare of abandoned children, and less about 'wanting a toy they don't have', I think healthy debate on the subject would be more clear.

Next, Please show me proof of this "wanting a toy they don't have" theory you're positing here.

Finally, please produce solid evidence of the alleged (I assume you're saying) damaging effects experienced by children raised by gay couples or individuals.

 

[FoneBone]

It's selfish to assume your gay lifestyle has no effect on a child. If gays were more concerned about the welfare of abandoned children, and less about 'wanting a toy they don't have', I think healthy debate on the subject would be more clear. As opposed to some pretty harsh reactions as seen above.

Go ahead and try to explain how being gay aversely affects a child's welfare. Just fucking try.

 

[akascream]

First, there's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." There are gay people, and such people have lives, all sorts of lives that are as wide ranging as those of straight people.

I'd disagree. I think there very much is a gay culture, and this is just an attempt to normalize unnatural behavior.

Next, Please show me proof of this "wanting a toy they don't have" theory you're positing here.

From my perspective, the gay agenda is very much an agenda of 'equal rights' first, consequences second.

Finally, please produce solid evidence of the alleged (I assume you're saying) damaging effects that happen to children raised in by gay couples or individuals.

I could ask you the same. Please produce solid evidence that there are no damaging effects that happen to children raised in by gay couples or individuals.

 

[akascream]

Go ahead and try to explain how being gay aversely affects a child's welfare. Just fucking try.

I think the burden of proof is on the gay community to come up with data to the contrary. Homosexual sex is unnatural by the very definition of the word, and raising children in a homosexual environment is a rather ironic twist on this fact. Why is it up to an already functioning society to prove you aren't a danger to a way of life established over years of evolution and natural selection.

Please, I'd love to see concrete evidence that there is no damage inherant from homosexual parents.

 

[Suerte]

To be honest, I don't think I could put a kid through it all, they'd probably get bullied pretty bad at school or whatever, but that's not to say things might be different in the future, maybe it'll become more acceptable, who knows?

 

[nitewulf]

It's selfish to assume your gay lifestyle has no effect on a child. If gays were more concerned about the welfare of abandoned children, and less about 'wanting a toy they don't have', I think healthy debate on the subject would be more clear. As opposed to some pretty harsh reactions as seen above.

your view seems to be sorta one sided though. you assume all gays are 22 year old wild party goers or something, judging from the 'toy' comment. there might be middle aged professors who would be completely different and very responsible as far as mentality goes, and may be they wanna raise a child.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'd disagree. I think there very much is a gay culture, and this is just an attempt to normalize unnatural behavior.

So, there is such a thing in America as black culture. Would you feel comfortable using the term "black lifestyle"? Also, you need to explain and back up exactly what you mean by "unnatural behavior." Homosexuality occurs widely throughout the animal kingdom. Is that "unnatural" as well? I'd be happy to dig up some articles that illustrate homosexuality throughout nature.

From my perspective, the gay agenda is very much an agenda of 'equal rights' first, consequences second.

This is an opinion and a rather broad one at that. Care to be more specific?

I could ask you the same. Please produce solid evidence that there are no damaging effects that happen to children raised in by gay couples or individuals.

And yet the onus is on you as you're the one claiming that these alleged damaging effects are real.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Go ahead and try to explain how being gay aversely affects a child's welfare. Just fucking try.

This is probably going to make you mad but when I was a kid, I needed my mum, plain and simple. I don't think a man or 2 men could provide that role. I also needed my dad, I think having 2 of one would be similar to being raised by a solo mum, or solo dad. That is to say, less than the ideal situation.

I am however not prepared to crucify a gay couple for making a go of it. That's merely what I would want for myself and my offspring (which I will try and provide myself obviously).

Having said that, I would rather have 2 mums or 2 dads than none of either. It would be a tougher upbringing than the standard, but thats pretty much how it's always going to be for the minority.

I wonder if this came off as being a bigot. That's not my intention.

Homosexual sex is unnatural by the very definition of the word

Well that's not actually true, as homosexual behaviour is seen in many animals, it's a natural occurance. It does however, preselect you not to breed. Which raises the argument "Why should we give them children then" which then raises the counter argument "Why should we let a barren woman adopt" etc etc.

EDIT: Which then raises the point "Kids without homes need them" which lands us roughly back at square one.

 

[FoneBone]

To be honest, I don't think I could put a kid through it all, they'd probably get bullied pretty bad at school or whatever, but that's not to say things might be different in the future, maybe it'll become more acceptable, who knows?

Well, it has to start somewhere...

 

[Dilbert]

The gay movement will never figure out that this is about the kids and not them. But I think the gay movement is pretty selfish all around, so this is no suprise.

You're half right -- it IS about the kids. The problem is that you somehow feel that providing a good home for a child is somehow less important than bigots' opinion of the parents.

Also, I'd love to hear your explanation about who exactly constitutes the "gay movement," and exactly in what ways you think they are "selfish."

The concept of state vs federal control is hardly new, and the balance, like many things in our system, is healthy. It's amazing some people forget this, especially considering our civil war was fought over it, and ultimately confused with a more pressing human rights issue.

I'm afraid that YOU are the one confused. If you go back and read the documents published by the seceding states, ALL of them cited slavery as a primary concern. The conflict came because new territories were not being divided evenly into slave and non-slave states, which was diminishing the power of the South as a whole within the Union. The fact that the Northern states were abolishing slavery and providing a safe haven for escaped Southern slaves was an additional irritant, but the absolute KEY issue was the loss of economic and political power because of restrictions on the EXPANSION of slavery.

Slaves in the South were not freed until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued...but that was done midway through the Civil War in an attempt to encourage rebellion since the North was not faring well in the conflict at that time. The Emancipation Proclamation was not enforced in fact until after the North had won and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed.

 

[FoneBone]

I wonder if this came off as being a bigot. That's not my intention.

Not from my perspective... but still, that's just anecdotal experience you're using. Isn't it conceivable that, had you been raised from the start by a gay couple, you might feel differently? Maybe I'm not making any sense...

 

[whytemyke]

The concept of state vs federal control is hardly new, and the balance, like many things in our system, is healthy. It's amazing some people forget this, especially considering our civil war was fought over it, and ultimately confused with a more pressing human rights issue.

It should also be noted that the side that was against state rights is the side that won.

 

[akascream]

your view seems to be sorta one sided though. you assume all gays are 22 year old wild party goers or something, judging from the 'toy' comment. there might be middle aged professors who would be completely different and very responsible as far as mentality goes, and may be they wanna raise a child.

I didn't mean to imply all gay people are young or immature. Just illustrating the concept of wanting something just because you don't have it. Moreover, it's not the maturity of the gay professor that I think could damage a child, but the immaturity of a child growin in this environment.

So, there is such a thing in America as black culture. Would you feel comfortable using the term "black lifestyle"? Also, you need to explain and back up exactly what you mean by "unnatural behavior." Homosexuality occurs widely throughout the animal kingdom. Is that "unnatural" as well? I'd be happy to dig up some articles.

I don't like how gays compare themselves to blacks. First off, gays aren't a race, they are a fetish. Second, I don't especially see how anyone could compare the shit gay people have had to deal with (and I don't want to minimize this), with slavery and the resulting race relations in this nation.

But I would say there are such things as S&M lifestyles, or mountain climbing lifestyles ect. That gay people get offended by thier own catagorization speaks to thier own self loathing. Sort of how words like retarded phase out, because they imply that somebody is handicapped, and that isn't pleasant.

Natural life is reproduction. Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a fetish, and one I personally don't care if people participate in. But I think fetish rights have simply gone too far. Especially when there are potential victims, especially children, at stake.

This is an opinion and a rather broad one at that. Care to be more specific?

I'm not sure how to say it more plainly. In my opinion, the gay agenda cant see the forest for the trees.

And yet the onus is on you as you're the one claiming that these alleged damaging effects are real.

I'm not clamoring for change.

 

[Dilbert]

Holy shit...just in the time I was typing, more came up:

I'd disagree. I think there very much is a gay culture, and this is just an attempt to normalize unnatural behavior.

I could make a decent argument that homosexuality is PERFECTLY "natural" by noting that it has been a persistent trait of human beings throughout history. You don't want to start down that semantic path...trust me.

I could ask you the same. Please produce solid evidence that there are no damaging effects that happen to children raised in by gay couples or individuals.

No, no, NO. You're not allowed to use that line of "defense." You made a claim...now back it up. I'm also going to ask people on the "it doesn't cause any harm to the child" side to ALSO document their sources.

 

[akascream]

It should also be noted that the side that was against state rights is the side that won.

Hehe. It's true, they didn't succede, but I think that would have been going too far. I do think state rights are important, however. The same way that the different branches of government balance each other, the ability to govern at a more local level, and have a conflict between the two is healthy imo.

 

[akascream]

I could make a decent argument that homosexuality is PERFECTLY "natural" by noting that it has been a persistent trait of human beings throughout history. You don't want to start down that semantic path...trust me.

I'm not aware of any case of homosexual reproduction.

No, no, NO. You're not allowed to use that line of "defense." You made a claim...now back it up. I'm also going to ask people on the "it doesn't cause any harm to the child" side to ALSO document their sources.

I'm fairly certain this issue came up from a desire on the part of homosexuals to be parents. I'd love to hear of any study that shows there are no consequences to unnatural family structures.


EDIT: clarification

 

[FoneBone]

S&M is a fetish. Furriness is a fetish. Sexual orientation is not a fucking fetish.

 

[Cherubae]

My mother is a gay foster parent.

She gained control over the kids from the mother they had known for years. The mom was a not-so-nice lady who did drugs, didn't take care of her kids, etc. Now my mom and her partner have the kids and makes sure the oldest goes to school (which he never did when he was with his biological mother). They're in a more stable environmnet and my mother's sexual preference has nothing to do with it. She's a foster parent because she cares, not because she wants some "toy" to play with. She had enough of that when raising my little brother and myself :lol

I have never heard from the boy that he's being bullied at school because of my mother. The kids he plays with do not care about sexual preferences and just want to ride bikes and watch YuGiOh.

It's absolutely rediculous that a state would not want a specific type of people to be foster parents. That just seems homophobic to me.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Isn't it conceivable that, had you been raised from the start by a gay couple, you might feel differently?

Yeah I could see that happening.

But I just don't know, all I have is anecdotal evidence and what I remember of my needs as a child. Therein lies the problem I suppose.

Some of you gay guys, given what you went through as part of your growing up being Gay etc, would you have wanted 2 gay parents during this?

Also, why does this thread not have the opinion of a christian nutcase by now?

First off, gays aren't a race, they are a fetish.

And you were doing reasonably well considering....

kids he plays with do not care about sexual preferences and just want to ride bikes and watch YuGiOh.

I would think these types of problems, should they arise would show up around 13 or so. You know when everyone starts talking about sex as children.

 

[Mashing]

It's true that Texas acts like it's still it's own country though. We even said the Texas state pledge in HS, what the fuck? Why do we have to say that?

Off topic, but incidentally Texas is the only state that has the right to secede from the United States due to Texas former state as a Republic. God forbid it ever came to that though. I'd fear for the world if Texas was it's own country (born and raised Texan I am too).

 

[whytemyke]

I don't like how gays compare themselves to blacks. First off, gays aren't a race, they are a fetish.

There are some that would disagree with this statement. Personally... tell me why you think people would WILLINGLY CHOOSE to 'become' an outlier of society that is destined for scorn by the masses? Calling gays a fetish is the equivalent of saying that blacks don't have to be black if they don't want to. Don't diminish what gay people are because you're too close-minded to accept the fact that it's not just a lifestyle... it's part of who they are.

Second, I don't especially see how anyone could compare the shit gay people have had to deal with (and I don't want to minimize this), with slavery and the resulting race relations in this nation.

Because gay people have only been the focal point for the last 30 years or so. While there are certainly no societal echoes of slavery or anything like that, there is definitely a very clear and dangerous path starting to treating gays, legally, even WORSE than blacks were treated. Keep in mind, blacks have been allowed to marry freely (debatable, I know, but just hear me out) since the emancipation proclomation. Gays are at risk of having that ability completely stripped of them and being made second class citizens.

That gay people get offended by thier own catagorization speaks to thier own self loathing.

So if I called you names, and said that you're an idiot, and then you got angry... I could then infer that your anger was a direct result of the shame you feel for your lifestyle? Or would I be correct in assuming that your offense is taken at having someone try to trivialize who you are with stupid cliches and stereotypes that do not fit?

 

[darscot]

Wow a law from the dark ages coming out of Texas. Why am I not surprised. How is this not discrimination? How is this not unconstitutional? What you do in the privacy of you bedroom has no bearing on you ability to raise children. What's next going to stop gays from having kids? It's more and more apparent that most people in the US have no idea what the word freedom actually means.

 

[totoro'd]

?

Also, why does this thread not have the opinion of a christian nutcase by now?

akascream is filling in atm

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'm also going to ask people on the "it doesn't cause any harm to the child" side to ALSO document their sources.

It looks like the major sudy in this field was published in the Journal of the American Sociological Association in 2001. The study can be read here The authors of the study comment on their findings here.

Family Pride Coalition: Could you give our readers a brief synopsis of your recently published research?

Judith Stacey: My co-author Tim Biblarz and I closely reexamined the findings and analyses of 21 studies that compared children of lesbian or gay parents with children of straight parents. Most reviews of this literature claim that there are no significant differences between gay and straight parents or their children. We argue that this is a defensive posture that unwittingly implies that any differences from heterosexual norms represent deficits. We demonstrate that while none of the published research provides evidence of deficits in same-sex parenting or child development, some studies do report some intriguing differences that deserve further study. Some of these differences could even be regarded as advantages, while others are simply differences.

For example, some studies suggest that lesbian co-mothers have more compatible views of their children than do heterosexual parenting couples. One study finds that children develop closer ties to lesbian stepmothers than to heterosexual stepfathers. Some research reports that lesbian parents are less concerned that their kids conform to gender norms in play. Unsurprisingly, therefore, one study found that daughters of lesbian mothers aspired to a wider range of careers including astronaut and engineer than did other daughters. More controversially, we also draw attention to evidence in a few studies that adult children of lesbian or gay parents are somewhat more likely to engage in homoerotic relationships.

 

[whytemyke]

Heh, it just stuns me sometimes that America can completely revolve around a television show that involves, for the most part, three single men teaming up together to raise children and teach them morals. Americans can find moral happiness and peace in Full House, and tons of entertainment.

But then when the idea comes of two men raising children together it's all over and people run away screaming "OMFG GET IT AWAYYYYY!!!1111111"