• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Texas bans gay foster parents

Status
Not open for further replies.

FoneBone

Member
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.
Given your post history, I'm just shocked that you'd offer that opinion. And that you wouldn't bother to support it, either!
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.

Wow, it must suck for the millions of kids out there who are not in "true" families, living with single parents, aunts and uncles, old family friends, or any other various appointed legal guardians who aren't their "true" mother and father. They all probably grow up to be headjobs because they don't live in a "true" family.
 

darscot

Member
Eric-GCA said:
I dont need to support anything. Its my opinion, and I'm sticking with it, and no one's gonna change it.

Spoken like a fool with his head up his ass. That's the thing with your opinion you have to keep it open for change. You should always want to hear the other side as it might change your opinion. That's how you grow and learn.
 

Crandle

Member
HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A FETISH

NEITHER ARE A GREAT NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE SEXUAL PRACTICES, SUCH AS BONDAGE

A FETISH IS A TOTAL OBSESSION WITH A CERTAIN SEXUALIZED "NORMAL" OBJECT OR STATE, TO THE POINT WHERE IT BECOMES NECESSARY

THIS TERM COMES FROM PRIMEVAL TRIBAL FETISHES THAT WERE SEEN AS BEING FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF A GROUP

THIS IS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT THE PEOPLE ARGUING OTHERWISE ARE IRRITATING THE HELL OUT OF ME FOR PERSONAL REASONS AND SO I AM SPAMMING ALL CAPS AT THEM

Seriously, go laugh at furries or something, people. Any conservative with a brain (also known as "libertarians", hyuk hyuk) should know that getting the government involved with something as personal and private as sexuality - INCLUDING when it gets tangled up with issues like adoption, where it shouldn't fucking matter unless one or more parents is a child molester or perhaps an absolute damaging weirdo - is an unimaginably stupid idea.
 

Triumph

Banned
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.
Yeah. Your mother and father obviously did a bang up job, eh?
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.

This quote perfectly emphasizes the lack of reality that people like to live in. Because they can't grasp the complexities of the world properly, they sink into a childish state where they only operate on concrete ideas such as a 'correct family'.

Grow up.
 

Dsal

it's going to come out of you and it's going to taste so good
The bullying argument is bullshit. I was bullied as a kid for my family making less money or for my parents being an interracial couple. Does that mean people who aren't rich or are interracial couples shouldn't have kids?

The "one mom one dad" argument is tired too. What if two brothers raised a kid after one of their wives died. Or a woman who lives with her mom and dad raise a kid. Does that make them morally deficient somehow?

The only real argument in the end for people against gay adoption is that they just hate gay people and are willing to make all kinds of tortured illogical claims to try to weasel out of the fact that they have no real fact to hang onto aside from their hate.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Raoul Duke said:
Yeah. Your mother and father obviously did a bang up job, eh?
LOL! You made a point I wanted to make. That these sanctimonious assholes who want to continue persecuting one specific group like this are the ones who had bad parenting. Hate to call out the folks, but if you are this ignorant in this day and age (of information), then your parents failed you miserably, straight or gay. Some of you would have done better with gay parents, b/c at least you would have a greater understanding of the world. Not the gay world, the real world. Gay people are everywhere, and homosexuality is something from the biblical days, eventhough I believe that particular publication to be absolute rubbish. At least it reminds us that there were "fags" even in the days of Jesus. And I don't know if Jesus was so ignorant as to shun people b/c of their sexual orientation. WWJD? Clearly he wouldn't be acting like so many assholes we see today.

I see no reason to be nice about it. You don't have to be gay to DESPISE the way homosexuality is villified. If you live or work with gay people (and we all do, even if you don't know it), you accept that they are normal folk like you and me. And what they do in private is the only thing that distinguishes us. So what the hell beef do I have with them that I need to limit their rights? I think it's quite disgusting to say the least, and if you want to deny homosexuals the dignity of a normal life, then I'll deny you the dignity of a civilized response. Two wrongs don't make a write, but spitting in the faces of bigots is certainly rewarding on many levels. PEACE.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
This would maybe make sense if there were more than enough heterosexuals applying to be adoptive parents, if there was enough demand for the supply. Is that the case? No. There are more kids than there are adoptive parents, even with gay ones in the mix.

The problem with much of the evidence put forth in this thread is that they are studies comparing children raised by straight parents vs. children raised by gay ones. That's not the choice here. It's gay parents vs. NO parents. I have a hard time imagining any study would find in favor of the latter over the former.

If it's really 'all about the kids' like many parrot, then they should ask the kids the fundamental question at stake here. Do they want a home with people who will care for them or do they want to stay in the orphanage? Don't think many would take option B.
 
Why did Eric-GCA even come in this thread if he wasn't willing to express his viewpoint or listen to others?

RE4 vs SH4: I have no clue what we're arguing about at this point, since practically everything you're saying I'm in agreement with :|. This is obviously a case of poor communication mixed with a healthy dose of presumptions, so let's end it now and get back to the topic of this thread.

Just FYI, I was talking about how society does limit people's beliefs through censorship or persecution when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others. We have hate crime legislation for a reason, and it sure isn't to promote free speech. Bottom line is, I think some religious fundamentalists aren't hinders to society, and you don't. I think you and I would agree that the vast majority are detrimental, but that's to be assumed in any radical group.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
If any nonreproductive sex is a fetish then wearing a condom is a fetish that has overrun our society and must be stopped now!

Ok, seriously, some people who harp on reproductive sex are being hypocrites. Either we're born to do nothing but breed or we're actually social creatures and you don't have to reproduce to contribute to society... you can't have both.

BobbyRobby said:
I wouldn't advise showing anger, or offense when arguing, especially when the one you're arguing against has shown none towards you. Its very boring, and makes you appear irrational, which isn't good since you have sound arguments to offer.
Quite true, and also when somebody is calmly jerking you around. :(
 

mrmyth

Member
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.


blinders.jpg


Apollo%20-%20Black-White-Red%20-%2066821.gif

Can you see the red is this kite, or is it all just black and white to you?
 

Triumph

Banned
What's really sad about Eric-GCA's comment is that he is Centuryon. You know, the guy who has a thing for tentacle rape hentai, has never known the touch of a woman, but most likely knows the touch of his gamecube all too well.

Yeah. That's a person I trust to make value judgements.
 
Hitokage said:
If any nonreproductive sex is a fetish then wearing a condom is a fetish that has overrun our society and must be stopped now!

Ok, seriously, some people who harp on reproductive sex are being hypocrites. Either we're born to do nothing but breed or we're actually social creatures in which you don't have to reproduce to contribute to society... you can't have both.

hahah, the thing is, most religious fundamentalists are opposed to birth control of any kind, so I wouldn't be surprised if you hear the argument that wearing a condom is a fetish.

I don't get how anyone can argue homosexuality is unnatural when we are all products of nature. If someone's born without a foot, are they deemed unnatural, and therefore incapable of being parents? Being different does not make you a better or worse person.
 

FiRez

Member
Nerevar said:
Wow, it must suck for the millions of kids out there who are not in "true" families, living with single parents, aunts and uncles, old family friends, or any other various appointed legal guardians who aren't their "true" mother and father. They all probably grow up to be headjobs because they don't live in a "true" family.

I think that he means about the mother and father role, not necesary the biological ones.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
FiRez said:
I think that he means about the mother and father role, not necesary the biological ones.
the analogy still holds true for single parents, of which there are certainly millions of them in the US alone.
 

OmniGamer

Member
Thankfully i've been preoccupied and could only read this thread and not reply....I fear i would have engaged in some supreme head-banging-against-a-wall. For those who have been the voice of sanity, thank you. I won't get into the "homosexuality is a fetish" "It's unnatural" crap, because I know me and I have a short fuse when presented with such obvious displays of unintelligence. But let's just look at one simple point, that of the "ideal" family.

Y'know, LIFE is NOT IDEAL. Shocking, yet somehow true. I wasn't BORN in ideal conditions(snowstorm in January of 1982), my parents didn't have IDEAL occupations, we didn't have an IDEAL income, we didn't live in an IDEAL neighborhood, and despite going to private schools for every grade except the 9th(Brooklyn Tech), and graduating with a regents diploma and getting accepted to Polytechinc University with 2 scholorships, i'm sure there were non-ideal situations along the way. Who the hell cares? Nobody save for a VERY select few is born into this world with a silver spoon in their months, and hell even in those cases, where it might seem "ideal" in theory, a lot of times it just cripples the child. People adapt, people grow, people learn, people cope and people survive. A child is not going to just collapse and die because they aren't in an "ideal" household. It's not about what's ideal, it's about what's NOT destructive or harmful to the child's development. I really don't see the logic in "They'll be made fun of"....what planet are you from? What child ISN'T teased or bullied or ostracised for one reason or another? Do you see a bill being written up to ban disfigured parents from adopting because the child would be made fun of? Or fat parents or very tall parents or very short parents or mixed race parents or poor parents or rich parents or handicapped parents...the list can go on and on. The same could have been said for a number of things which are now seen as acceptable and common place which would have drawn the same "it's taboo" arguments 50 or 100 years ago. Progress is made by taking steps forward...not side stepping and just hoping the "problem" will go away.

Pfft....i'd be more worried about a child catching "Teh Stupid" than "Teh Gay".
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
OpinionatedCyborg said:
hahah, the thing is, most religious fundamentalists are opposed to birth control of any kind, so I wouldn't be surprised if you hear the argument that wearing a condom is a fetish.
Yeah, but the whole "ye must not give in to carnal pleasure and live by virtues and works(or something)" and "you are only here to fuck a woman and have offspring" don't exactly mix, which is my point. ;)
 
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Why did Eric-GCA even come in this thread if he wasn't willing to express his viewpoint or listen to others?

RE4 vs SH4: I have no clue what we're arguing about at this point, since practically everything you're saying I'm in agreement with :|. This is obviously a case of poor communication mixed with a healthy dose of presumptions, so let's end it now and get back to the topic of this thread.

Just FYI, I was talking about how society does limit people's beliefs through censorship or persecution when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others. We have hate crime legislation for a reason, and it sure isn't to promote free speech. Bottom line is, I think some religious fundamentalists aren't hinders to society, and you don't. I think you and I would agree that the vast majority are detrimental, but that's to be assumed in any radical group.

My bad. At the time of my postings, I'd only really read two posts by you and didn't even glance over the others you made (except to look for my handle), so I probably missed your stance and presumed a lot. I didn't ignore your replies to other posters out of resentment, I'm just really sick and I haven't been able to get any sleep because of these crappy coughs. I'm pretty much on autopilot. And now I've gotta stay up the whole day so my sleep pattern doesn't get more screwed up than it already is.
 

djtiesto

is beloved, despite what anyone might say
akascream - I'm just curious... what would you do if you had a kid who turned out to be gay?

Also, ironically enough... if it wasn't for a gay man (Turing), there is a good chance we wouldn't all be online, arguing about this stuff :p
 

Che

Banned
krypt0nian said:
UnHoly Fuck!

I'm to the point where I'm hoping we can take to the streets and firebomb shit.

FUCK YOU HOMOPHOBIC CUNTS!

I hope he didn't get banned for this cos I bet many thought that when they read some posts in this thread. We were just being polite... I mean what else can I say to Bacon who prefers having no parents to having gay ones?

You are right that it does not make it correct. But what is correct? The two sides have opposing views about what is correct. I do not believe this argument is rooted in ignorance and bigotry. There are many good people and well educated people on BOTH sides of the argument. It isn’t Rednecks Vs. the New York Elite. There are people in Texas that agree with your side as I am sure there are people in New York that agree with my side.

You see, I think that being a redneck is a matter of beliefs and not whether you live in a trailer park or not. So I assume that anyone with rusted ignorant beliefs who hates people just because they're different is automatically a redneck in my book.

Raoul Duke said:
Just because they have a different view doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean that it is not rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

I couldn't agree more.
 

Dilbert

Member
Nerevar said:
How come aka isn't banned yet? I mean seriously, he hasn't backed up any of his claims and consistently make sweeping generalizations about a "gay agenda" that he can provide no proof of. He repeats deragotory comments (such as "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality is just a fetish", etc.) despite multiple posts with proof to the contrary (like Mandark's, which he casually ignores), and is unable to validate his claims with any proof of his own. I honestly don't see what purpose he's serving outside of "riling up the leftists". He's like the perfect guest on Scarborough country or the O'Reilly Factor and I really thought people like -Jinx- and Drinky were going to put a lockdown on this sort of atittude?
Sadly, I've been AFK for a while. Now that I've dug through five pages of posts...

akascream said:
I'm sorry, I didn't notice any proof of homosexual reproduction. I've made it clear this is my definition of natural sexual activity. As the function of sex is reproduction. Either way, I'm not obligated to respond to anything, and am mostly just trying not to monopolize the conversation because my pov is obviously no more important than anyone elses. It would be unfair to capitolize on the one-sided nature of this community.

...

Oh, and I'm still waiting on proof that irregular housholds don't effect children. You certainly won't hear me calling for a ban on everyone that makes the assumption, however.
I don't think you understand. When you step into a heated topic and make all kinds of inflammatory comments, you either stick around to defend that point of view with rationale or evidence, or you take a vacation. I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that single-sex families caused some kind of damage to the children raised in that environment, and you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Meanwhile, in this thread, TWO different people have provided links to two different studies showing that your claim is incorrect. I have no idea how you utterly missed those posts, but I suggest you go read them right now. I would also STRONGLY suggest that you go find some evidence ASAP to support your position, or be prepared to retract your original statement.

And, oh yeah, there is this smart guy called Mandark who hangs out on this forum. He asked you a couple of questions. You might want to get back to him, too.

TehPirate said:
Because you dont ban people for having a different opinion as you. Thats taking a step backwards.
No, I ban people who ignore direct questions, make claims without evidence, and basically give the impression of enjoying stirring up a shitstorm and then bailing out. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: NOT ALL OPINIONS ARE EQUAL. I don't know who started the equivocation that "everyone is entitled to their opinion," but I'm sick of it. Opinions which are not based on factual evidence, extensive experience, or a rational hypothesis are bullshit, plain and simple. Yeah, sure, people have individual preferences -- we're never going to agree on what is beautiful or interesting. But preferences aren't what is being discussed here, and quite frankly, personal preferences are irrelevant in this case.

By the way -- have you found any evidence for those percentages you pulled out of your ass yet? Or do you want to reconsider those statements?
 

Matlock

Banned
I'd just like to throw in my two cents with the homosexuality isn't natural argument--it's as much a product of society as it is either biology or the chemistry of your brain.

It has some natural roots, but you also have to realize that it couldn't exist without society that influences a person that eventually turns to homosexuality.

For those keeping score at home:

Psychology
Biology
Society

Got it?

Nice.

Now revel in the fact that it isn't completely natural.

Oh, Nature vs. Nurture, how I love you.
 

mrmyth

Member
Matlock said:
I'd just like to throw in my two cents with the homosexuality isn't natural argument--it's as much a product of society as it is either biology or the chemistry of your brain.

It has some natural roots, but you also have to realize that it couldn't exist without society that influences a person that eventually turns to homosexuality.

For those keeping score at home:

Psychology
Biology
Society

Got it?

Nice.

Now revel in the fact that it isn't completely natural.

Oh, Nature vs. Nurture, how I love you.


You lost me there. People choose to be gay? Based on peer pressure, basically?
 

darscot

Member
Matlock said:
I'd just like to throw in my two cents with the homosexuality isn't natural argument--it's as much a product of society as it is either biology or the chemistry of your brain.

It has some natural roots, but you also have to realize that it couldn't exist without society that influences a person that eventually turns to homosexuality.

For those keeping score at home:

Psychology
Biology
Society

Got it?

Nice.

Now revel in the fact that it isn't completely natural.

Oh, Nature vs. Nurture, how I love you.

How do you explain homsexual animals then?
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
Matlock said:
It has some natural roots, but you also have to realize that it couldn't exist without society that influences a person that eventually turns to homosexuality

If this were true, wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that places like California and Connecticut would be virtually havens of gay people, while places like Texas, which on the whole is a very anti-gay state, would have virtually zero gay people?

And, if your statement were true, wouldn't you then be able to say that the only places with gay people are places where gays exist in society in the first place? Then what came first... the gay person or the society that made the gay person?


and jinx, if you're going to go after akascream for his hijinx, I think you absolutely MUST ban Eric-GCA for this bullshit:
Eric-GCA said:
Only thing I'll say on the issue is that a true Family is created with a Mother and a Father, there is no other family in my eyes, nor will there ever be.
Eric-GCA said:
I dont need to support anything. Its my opinion, and I'm sticking with it, and no one's gonna change it.

Not trying to tell ya how to do your job or anything, but I should think that this kind of stuff fits your description ("When you step into a heated topic and make all kinds of inflammatory comments, you either stick around to defend that point of view with rationale or evidence, or you take a vacation.") more than ANYTHING Akascream did. Don't get me wrong, I want to see Akascream back here to defend himself, too... but clearly Eric-GCA should be in the same boat.
 
There've been studies linking pregnant women, who're under considerable stress during pregnancy, to having homosexual children. I recall seeing a show on TV (TV's always right :) ) about an inordinate number of homosexuals being produced from cities in Nazi Germany that were firebombed by the allies. Even if we assume these studies are completely factual, the homosexuals produced still had no say in their sexual orientation since the biological changed occurred during pregnancy.

Other cases where people 'choose' to become homosexuals are even less defined. I supposed some would point to jails as evidence that homosexuality can be a choice, but I would argue the majority of sexual activity, between males in prison, is done to dominate and control rather than achieve sexual gratification. There are a lot of stories, however, where the bitches are asked to dress and act like females, so the male performing the homosexual act doesn't feel like he's gay.

While the environment does play a role in who we are, I believe that nature plays a much larger role in defining our sexual preference. In extreme circumstances--like being imprisoned for years--heterosexuals will perform homosexual acts on others. And we can't discount the effect stress or drugs have on developing fetuses. But for the most part, there is no moment in our lives where we make a conscious decision to be straight or gay. I never decided to be straight, and could only decide to become gay under extreme circumstances where I was psychologically disturbed.

RE4 vs SH4: No problem. When I referred to presumptions and miscommunication, I was speaking as much for myself as I was for you. I'm not a very focused person, least of all at the computer, so I often go off on tangents and become difficult to comprehend.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
Matlock said:
I'd just like to throw in my two cents with the homosexuality isn't natural argument--it's as much a product of society as it is either biology or the chemistry of your brain.

It has some natural roots, but you also have to realize that it couldn't exist without society that influences a person that eventually turns to homosexuality.

For those keeping score at home:

Psychology
Biology
Society

Got it?

Nice.

Now revel in the fact that it isn't completely natural.

Oh, Nature vs. Nurture, how I love you.


how smug!

I'd say far more people have turned straight due to society (supressing their gayness in other words) than have ever turned gay.

This is something I've had to encounter twice within my own family and it's pretty depressing sight to behold.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
whytemyke said:
haha, so can I take this to mean that Akascream has pussed out of the debate?

Yes, it's fitting that such a raving heterosexual happens to be a pussy, ain't it? Or perhaps we can say he "dicked" out of the debate in case "pussed" is too femine for him. Or is that too gay? The mind boggles!!
 

darscot

Member
I've always found that most raving hetero sexuals have problems with there own homosexual feelings. Everybody has homosexual feelings at some point or another. It may be no more then, I'm just not in the mood to hang out with women and would rather just hang with the guys, but everybody has them.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
darscot said:
I've always found that most raving hetero sexuals have problems with there own homosexual feelings. Everybody has homosexual feelings at some point or another. It may be no more then, I'm just not in the mood to hang out with women and would rather just hang with the guys, but everybody has them.

Heh Reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Homer takes Bart hunting in order to keep him from catching the gay. What's Bart's line? Something like "I dunno, something about a bunch of guys, in the woods, alone. Seems kinda gay."
 

Dilbert

Member
whytemyke said:
Not trying to tell ya how to do your job or anything, but I should think that this kind of stuff fits your description ("When you step into a heated topic and make all kinds of inflammatory comments, you either stick around to defend that point of view with rationale or evidence, or you take a vacation.") more than ANYTHING Akascream did. Don't get me wrong, I want to see Akascream back here to defend himself, too... but clearly Eric-GCA should be in the same boat.
Actually, you left out Lindsey.

You're right -- if I was feeling particularly annoyed today, I might do something about it. The difference is mostly one of scale: Eric-GCA made his two stupid comments (which almost sound solipsistic, since he admitted that he's not listening to anyone) and then vanished; akascream has spent quality time "responding" to others and pushing his position.

Finally, Raoul Duke summed it up perfectly: Consider the source. Does ANYONE take that guy seriously?
 
so i just read this entire thread, just to see what was going on...

as far as my own opinion goes, i'd have to say 2 gay parents is better than no parents at all...

but damn, what a crucifixion it is for people with a different opinion...

makes me wonder if i'm really on the 'more tolerant' side...
 
The Faceless Master said:
so i just read this entire thread, just to see what was going on...

as far as my own opinion goes, i'd have to say 2 gay parents is better than no parents at all...

but damn, what a crucifixion it is for people with a different opinion...

makes me wonder if i'm really on the 'more tolerant' side...
I don't speak for everyone, but I don't see asking people to defend discriminatory stances and attacks on peoples' ways of life as being particularly difficult.
 

akascream

Banned
If any nonreproductive sex is a fetish then wearing a condom is a fetish that has overrun our society and must be stopped now!

Well it's not as if it can be discussed any more now that an official threat of ban has been issued. I'm not suprised at this communities lack of tolerance though. Ironic.
 
akascream said:
Well it's not as if it can be discussed any more now that an official threat of ban has been issued. I'm not suprised at this communities lack of tolerance though. Ironic.
You know, way back on page 1, we were asked to back up our opinions and I put in the time and energy to research mine and post the results in this thread. You simply ignored the request and my posting. You have absolutely no room to complain about a lack of tolerance or the threat of a ban in this thread. None. Frankly, I'm shocked you haven't been banned yet.
 

Dilbert

Member
akascream said:
Well it's not as if it can be discussed any more now that an official threat of ban has been issued. I'm not suprised at this communities lack of tolerance though. Ironic.
It's not about lack of tolerance -- it's about lack of reading comprehension.

Sorry dude, my patience is gone. I think Gandhi would have punched you in the face by now.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
This thread should be merged with the anti-intellectualism one. These two threads have some things strangely in common...besides my posts. :lol PEACE.
 
Not to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion here, but I have to clarify.

This is so funny. If you were a foster kid, I bet you'd take gay parents. It's not like anyone can apply and get a kid. There are extensive bg checks, and the financial committment is big.

My parents are into foster care, and I assure you the background testing and legwork on the part of the caseworkers is not all that extensive. Without getting too detailed, here's the quick explanation - My total prick family convinced the biological mother of two children that they would adopt her daughters if she gave up custody of them.

She did.

My parents fucked her in the ass. The children were removed from the home with no shortage of drama, and my parents lost their foster care license. Not before adopting a child though.

Now they've tracked down the biological sister of their foster son, and have somehow managed to get their license back after the evil prick shenanigans they pulled.

Fostercare is a totally screwed up situation, and is not as safe as most folks assume. Which is why I advocate any willing and caring parents be approved. Regardless of sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is there is a surplus of illegitimate children in our country, and if the government isn't going to intervene to prevent the druggies, rapists, and retards from reproducing through sterilization or some other means; then by all means - give these children to a family that will raise them in a caring environment.

It's also a fallacy to believe the child you will be given will be completely well acclimated. Nope, you get the crack babies, the mentally stunted, and such in this deal. If their parents aren't willing to take on that burden and somebody else is - that's qualification for Sainthood even if you fancy "having your shit pushed up" in my book.

My foster brother's biological sister came from a small single family home in which her foster parents had six other foster children. Not for love. Not for nurturing. For the paycheck the county issues foster parents each month. It's sort of like a sweatshop, only instead of working the kids to death; you pack as many as you can into your home, neglect them, and collect the money for it at the end of the month.

The county and caseworkers don't actively care. They just want the children out of their hands.

Fostercare is a far cry from perfect.

As usual, I expect most of ultra conservative Gaming Age is just spouting off sans qualification.
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
1. Stupid AKAScream had to honestly be trying to get banned purposely. There's no way somebody can be that stupid. And I'm not talking about opinions.. i'm saying being stupid enough to not back himself up. The bitch about it is that he's still going to be convinced that he's right, and people like him will always be able to get away without backing up their shit or challenging their ideas. Then when they're rejected they'll still be so stupid as to assume that they're right and playing the role of the rejected, unappreciated sage.

2. I dont know if its been posted yet, but have you all seen the number yet that up to 2500 foster children will now be taken from their parents and guardians and put back into state-run orphanages, which have been under investigation for recent child deaths? It's such a tragedy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom