The Foster Agenda

April 20, 2005 11:34 AM

"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." The Texas state House has approved legislation that would prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket (135 comments total)

...and the problem with that is ...?
posted by darren at 11:40 AM on April 20, 2005

Gosh Darren, you beat me too it. I am glad that there are no gay teachers, cops, fire fighters, health care practitioners, or other people who might come in contact with our kids. Just imagine the moral and physical danger they would face!
posted by Danf at 11:47 AM on April 20, 2005

... that there's no correlation between sexual orientation and child molestation/abuse?

(... and the problem with labelling you a troll is ...?)
posted by joe lisboa at 11:48 AM on April 20, 2005

(damn, Danf beat me to it.)
posted by joe lisboa at 11:49 AM on April 20, 2005

What about closeted homosexuals? Would that be alright?

/nice country you've got there, America
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 11:50 AM on April 20, 2005

... that, at a time when foster parents are desperately needed, perfectly safe and normal people are being prohibited from doing so for ridiculous and untrue reasons, which is both injurious to children who need foster parents and adults who are trying to fight the prejudiced and homophobic belief that they are child molesters because they are attracted to adults who happen to look like themselves ... ?

Or, were you just trolling?

(On preview ... yeah.)
posted by kyrademon at 11:50 AM on April 20, 2005

Off topic: how would you flag that post? Offensive content? Noise? Derail?
posted by Specklet at 11:52 AM on April 20, 2005

Since the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual, I think ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to be foster parents.
posted by luriete at 11:53 AM on April 20, 2005

Off topic: how would you flag that post? Offensive content? Noise? Derail?

Attention seeking splutterings of a dried-up soulless twat?
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:54 AM on April 20, 2005

how would you flag that post?
'buster frontin like hes hard but he aint shit he a lil bitch'
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:55 AM on April 20, 2005

Only two things come from Texas:

Steers, and queerspeople unsuitable for foster parenting.
posted by I EAT TAPES at 11:56 AM on April 20, 2005

Just once, I wish someone would explain to me the problem with homosexuals being parents, foster or otherwise. I have yet to meet anyone who could explain this to me, other than to say "It's just wrong!".
posted by Serena at 12:02 PM on April 20, 2005

...and the problem with that is ...?

Because if there's anything adult gay and bisexual men and women like to do in their spare time, more than anything else, it's buggering their foster kids in the state of Texas. When the Texas Tourism Board prints "foster child buggery and 110+ degree weather" on their travel brochures, this state has no one to blame but itself.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:03 PM on April 20, 2005

Steers, and queerspeople unsuitable for foster parenting.

No matter where this thread goes that made it worth it.
posted by Cyrano at 12:07 PM on April 20, 2005

Since the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual, I think ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to be foster parents.

Word.

Someone said it in the Ted Nugent thread and it's so true, the macho legislative swaggering of American "Conservatives" is nothing more than a thinly veiled SOS screaming "Help, help we're shit scared of everything." Fucking TOUGHEN UP you babies.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:09 PM on April 20, 2005

Since so many Texas state reps. are known to adopt black orphans with AIDS and severe birth defects...

As I've said before, this "Culture of Life" rhetoric is so much bullshit, and my fellow Americans are suckers for letting the Republicans get away with it.
posted by bardic at 12:32 PM on April 20, 2005

Note that studies (at least the studies cited in my Psych 101 book) show that kids raised by gay couples are no more likely to "become" gay than kids raised by straight couples.

This may surprise only few of you; I just offer it as a reminder that even if kids becoming gay themselves was bad, there'd be no risk of that.
posted by NickDouglas at 12:34 PM on April 20, 2005

I'm glad they did so, although I'd be more interested in the state's stance on gay adoption.
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 12:34 PM on April 20, 2005

13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
posted by matteo at 12:36 PM on April 20, 2005

Did anyone else cry when Bush got re-elected?
posted by crapulent at 12:38 PM on April 20, 2005

Did anyone else cry when Bush got re-elected?

I vomited in my mouth, a little. Anyone with a shred of foresight saw this shit coming a mile away.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:41 PM on April 20, 2005

Matthew 6:5

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

See ya in hell with the rest of us sinners, matteo!
posted by headspace at 12:45 PM on April 20, 2005

I hope that the Texas legislature comes out with a law banning the consumption of unclean crustaceans.
posted by bshort at 12:49 PM on April 20, 2005

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...

Yet another reason to despise Christians and their vile, hate-filled little book.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:54 PM on April 20, 2005

Thanks for making that thoughtful & irrefutable point, Matteo. Every time someone uses a bible verse in place of actual *thought*, it always makes me step back and rethink my position! Even though I'm agnostic (leaning towards atheist), I suppose your god must be right and I applaud his obvious interest in America's politics. I'm sure your god would much prefer a nicer home for vulnerable children. As mentioned previously, would they be better off with a child molester? Would they be better off with an abuser?

I don't need a Rule Book (bible) to tell me how to act; I use compassion, independent thinking and common sense instead!
posted by Bear at 12:58 PM on April 20, 2005

You tell that fascist fundie matteo, Bear! Stick it to 'em!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:00 PM on April 20, 2005

check darren's posting history. he's a pretty intense homophobe.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:01 PM on April 20, 2005

And we all know what that means.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:04 PM on April 20, 2005

13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a Hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

(This is just as meaningful)
posted by Tin Man at 1:07 PM on April 20, 2005

Specklet writes "Off topic: how would you flag that post? Offensive content? Noise? Derail?"

I wouldn't flag it. i don't agree with it, but it's on topic and it's not deliberately offensive. Even homophobic idiots have a right to express their views; flagging unpopular opinions won't make MetaFilter a better place, it'll just make it less open.
posted by orthogonality at 1:07 PM on April 20, 2005

that fascist fundie matteo,

and I'm a Christ-killer, too!
posted by matteo at 1:08 PM on April 20, 2005

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yeah, but that's Bible 1.0. We're on Bible 2.0 now.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:09 PM on April 20, 2005

I'm disappointed in the priorities of the Texas legislature. Everyone knows that the real risk is that Jewish couples are adopting Christian children to use in blood sacrifices.
posted by klangklangston at 1:09 PM on April 20, 2005

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Why can't Christians just be silently smug as they condemn the rest of us to eternal damnation instead of throwing it in our faces? I can be pretty silently smug about the world created when all the Texan kids from broken homes can't find good homes. (I'm not the one who's gonna have my car stolen by a crack-addicted 14 year old school drop out who got saved from the dangers of loving gay foster parents).
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:11 PM on April 20, 2005

*thinks about the Pharisees*

*wonders why nobody brings them up anymore*
posted by schroedinger at 1:12 PM on April 20, 2005

Yet another reason to despise Christians and their vile, hate-filled little book

Cute.
posted by unreason at 1:16 PM on April 20, 2005

Yeah, mcsweetie. You're right about darren being a homophobe. Hey darren! Can you jump back in here? As our resident gay-hater, we'd like to ask you a few questions.
posted by crapulent at 1:16 PM on April 20, 2005

headspace: See ya in hell with the rest of us sinners, matteo!

Actually, you probably have a better chance of not going to hell since you acknowledge you're a sinner. It's the people who KNOW(Texas House) they are good people you need to be worried about. (what they can do to you here on earth, f#$% 'em in the afterlife!)
posted by MrMulan at 1:16 PM on April 20, 2005

Just because someone uses a Bible verse to illustrate their point does not make them wrong or right - nor does it mean that they don't think or possess compassion. Opposing a view because it is supported by the Bible is begging the question just as much as endorsing the view for the same reason.
posted by rush at 1:17 PM on April 20, 2005

And we all know what that means.

Does the answer have anything to do with John Stewart's comment about it not being gay if you're on top?
posted by jperkins at 1:17 PM on April 20, 2005

We're on Bible 2.0 now

you mean the New International Version?

13
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

I guess "abomination" is more elegant, but then I'm partial to the KJV.

___


*thinks about the Pharisees*
*wonders why nobody brings them up anymore*

Thomas:

Jesus said, "Woe unto the Pharisees. For what they resemble is a dog sleeping in the manger of some cattle, for it neither eats nor [lets] the cattle feed."posted by matteo at 1:17 PM on April 20, 2005

Following the next logical step...

Lets take the kids away from anyone who is mentally damaged. You know, all of those queers.

Oops. "Us" queers. Damn. I'll miss you, Zo'.
posted by andreaazure at 1:22 PM on April 20, 2005

*reads Leviticus*

*wonders why the fundies are quite as pissed about shellfish.*

*reminds self, that won't get anyone elected*
posted by Freen at 1:22 PM on April 20, 2005

Off topic: how would you flag that post? Offensive content? Noise? Derail?

it seems as though I should have something to say about this, doesn't it?
posted by [!] at 1:23 PM on April 20, 2005

er... aren't quite as pissed....
posted by Freen at 1:23 PM on April 20, 2005

Serena:

My view on gay parenting (reproductive) is that it should not be allowed until society is able to cope with homosexuality. The child will undoubtedly be the victim of bullying and intimidation from its peers (and possibly their so-called parents too). I'm wholly supportive of equality for homosexuals, including the right to marriage, but I believe that the child's welfare must come before the rights of the prospective parent. Society's attitude towards homosexuals must change, but I don't think the child should be drawn into the 'battle', if you will, without their fully informed consent.

Of course it all changes when you bring adoption into the picture. The benefit to the child of having a stable upbringing has to be weighed against the possible discrimination they may face, but I'm not familiar with the state of adoption to have an informed view on this.
posted by Boo! at 1:26 PM on April 20, 2005

This may surprise only few of you; I just offer it as a reminder that even if kids becoming gay themselves was bad, there'd be no risk of that.

I suspect the danger is less that they'll become gay, and more that they'll become liberals, possibly even Democrats.

I wonder, though, how they plan to detect the bisexuals. I mean, if they're in a het relationship at the time, how will the state be able to tell? Is the a blood test for that, yet?
posted by jacquilynne at 1:28 PM on April 20, 2005

My view on gay parenting (reproductive) is that it should not be allowed until society is able to cope with homosexuality.

I assume you mean "discouraged" rather than "not be allowed"? How would you prevent a lesbian couple from having children?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:42 PM on April 20, 2005

I thought Armitage Shanks was referring to the whole old testament / new testament thing. After Peter became the foundation of the Church, the followers of Christ's teachings approached him and asked him what they should do about all of the rules in the scriptures. Peter responded (I'm paraphrasing) that what mattered was that people follow the teachings of Christ, and that they could abandon the old rules and traditions. However, he did point out that some of the old rules and traditions were integral to the cultural identity of the early Christians, and so they also may choose to keep the ones that they held dear. So they kept many rules and traditions for cultural reasons, like circumcision and opposition to homosexuality, amongst others. However, they got rid of a great number as well, such as much of Leviticus which is considered by some to be God's "health codes" for the time in which they were passed down.

For this reason, it's either disingenuous or ignorant to quote parts of the Old Testament that are no longer held as direct guidance by the majority of Christians, in an effort to illustrate the hypocrisy of obeying the parts that are still generally held to be applicable (an approach I've seen many times on the Web).

On the other hand, to say that it is God's express will that we oppose those that break the old rules and traditions is a bit hazy as well. In Christian faiths that support the concept of multiple pillars of faith (such as most liturgical faiths), it is possible that opposition to homosexuality is supported and reinforced by faith, but not strictly by the scriptures. So it's not strictly tenable to say that homosexuality should be opposed "because the Bible says so." One would have to say that homosexuality should be opposed because "the understanding and interpretation of the Bible that I follow says so."

I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it's a pretty big difference to some of us Christians that some of you agnostics/atheists/others are so readily bashing.
posted by rush at 1:42 PM on April 20, 2005

*reminds self, that won't get anyone elected*

that would lose the GOP a boatload of votes in Maine especially. I want my Freedom Chowder!
posted by matteo at 1:42 PM on April 20, 2005

Copied from my previous work....

"But G-d hates dem queers!"

Maybe, but judging simply by time spent, it would seem that G-d is far more preoccupied with bacon cheeseburgers and cotton-nylon shirts.

After all, if G-d refers to homosexuality at all in the Bible, it's only in very oblique terms, while kosher laws and other commandments Christians today ignore are iterated in painstaking detail.

The only place where G-d refers to homosexuality directly is in Leviticus 20:13. Interestingly, though, the book of Leviticus is so named for the tribe of Levi, because it's a book of rules for priests. Moreover, the context of the chapter makes it clear that what is being banned is not homosexuality per se, so much as it is a particular cult that once existed in Palestine, that of Molech.

Some others have interpreted the story of Sodom & Gemorrah as G-d's punishment for homosexuals. It is from this interpretation that we have the term "sodomy," a word so broad in English usage that even monogamous, vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman might be called sodomy if it isn't in the missionary position. However, this interpretation is rather recent. Josephus claimed their sin was pride; in the Talmud, it is cruelty and greed, as in the Midrash. The Prophet Jeremaiah implies that their sin had something to do with adultery, deceit or other, generalized "wickedness." Ezekiel quite explicitly states that Sodom's sin was pride and a failure to aid "the poor and needy."

Jesus only refers to homosexuality if we accept the novel interpretation of Sodom and Gemorrah adopted by fundamentalist Christians in contradiction to the Bible's teachings; even in this interpretation, though, the only thing Jesus has to say on the subject is--repeatedly--that the Last Day will render far harsher judgements on various religious leaders who look after their own wealth and political power by sowing intolerance and bigotry with a deceitful interpretation of G-d's Scriptures.

Hmmm....
posted by jefgodesky at 1:43 PM on April 20, 2005

I wonder what them Texans think about the fact that gay Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein (who recently married his male partner of 40 years in Massachusetts - previously discussed here) has been raising two adopted children on his estate in Ipswich, MA.

Also today from others in the South: “Bill that would ban literature ‘promoting a homosexual lifestyle’ to be considered Wednesday in Alabama”
posted by ericb at 1:44 PM on April 20, 2005

My view on gay parenting (reproductive) is that it should not be allowed until society is able to cope with homosexuality.

Do you mean "adoptive"? Because it seems like there are quite a number of gay parents out there already, including the ones who procreated when they were desperately pretending to be hetero. Barn door, horse, etc.

On the man lying with man bit: Michael Musto told a funny anecdote some time ago about an Orthodox rabbi who tried to pick him up. Musto, understandably bemused, quoted the verse from Leviticus--to which the rabbi responded, "I'm not trying to lie with you like a woman--I'm trying to lie with you like a man!" (Paraphrasing from memory here.)
posted by thomas j wise at 1:46 PM on April 20, 2005

I had a friend who spent most of her teenage years in foster care. The sexual abuse that she had experienced at home was so bad that it took her a long time to realize that the (less severe) sexual abuse she experienced in foster care was not, in fact, "normal."

For foster care to really work, the qualifications of foster parents need to relate in a genuine way to their ability to care for children, particularly the type of vulnerable children that come into the foster care program. I have never heard of a credible study that links sexual preference (either homo- or heterosexual) to parenting ability, although there are several credible studies that refute such a link.

Excluding gay people from foster care on the basis that they are somehow intrinsically unable to parent because of their sexuality has a doubly negative effect on foster care: first, it limits the pool of available foster parents; and second, it creates a false "qualification" for parenting that could make the screening of heterosexual parents less rigorous.

The article also mentions that some of Texas's child services will be privatized. This seems rather disturbing: private business works because of profits. What type of profits can be made from providing foster care? What are the implications for children in a private system?
posted by carmen at 1:48 PM on April 20, 2005

Um, yeah matteo, that was my point.

The Pharisees were the group of Jews who argued over the letter of the law rather than the spirit, sticking it to whomever didn't follow this or that exact practice while making a lot of their own supposed holiness, praying openly and praising themselves and whatnot because they could recite obscure quotes and followed the most useless bits of the law. They were also monstrous hypocrites and tended to only follow those parts of the law that suited them--their focus on the nattering bits was to distract from their outright defiance of the major points of Jewish law, like justice and mercy and love for God. Jesus condemned them above all other groups--that was why he made such a big deal about associating with "undesirables" instead of the supposed "holy" Pharisees. He was pointing out that the love of God, "loving your neighbor as yourself", was more important than anything else.

Now, it's not like I'm looking at these supposed Christians and drawing parallels between the Pharisees who shunned and condemned the undesirables of society--the prostitutes, the lepers, the criminals, the poor--while holding up massive copies of the holy texts and screaming about how holy they are . . . wait, never mind, I am.

Go read the fucking New Testament and stick your Pharisaic sermons in your ass where they belong.
posted by schroedinger at 1:49 PM on April 20, 2005

Er, comments about Pharisaic sermons and asses directed at fundies in general.
posted by schroedinger at 1:51 PM on April 20, 2005

I thought Armitage Shanks was referring to the whole old testament / new testament thing.

Yes. My understanding is that some parts of the Old Testament are considered anachronistic by followers of the New Testament. To quote Ron Ziegler, "This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:52 PM on April 20, 2005

The Old Testament never mentions homosexuality, except in some novel interpretations of the past century or so. You won't find it in the gospels, either. Only in Paul's epistles, in between directly contradicting Christ's teachings and condoning slavery.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:52 PM on April 20, 2005

With all due respect, Boo!, EVERY child in the US (and I'm expecting this is true world-wide) "...will undoubtedly be the victim of bullying and intimidation from its peers..."

This is the type of argument folks use to discourage mixed couples from parenting.

Children are amazingly resilient creatures!
posted by Bear at 1:53 PM on April 20, 2005

posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on April 20, 2005

and stick your Pharisaic sermons in your ass where they belong.

but then, that'd be sodomy!
posted by matteo at 1:56 PM on April 20, 2005

Would Mexico take Texas back if we asked nicely?
posted by HuronBob at 1:59 PM on April 20, 2005

Am I the only one here who looks back on the rhetoric of this last election and the direction of public debate in the months leading up to it and since, and draws a connection between being gay in the US in 2004-5 and Jewish in Germany circa 1930?
This is not meant to be a troll, nor as a doomsday prediction that the US Military will be goose-stepping down K Street and herding gays and liberals into death camps in less than a decade. I just think it is necessary to publicly discuss the connection on some poli-sci level, to make people less history-oriented aware that, a while back, some of these same things were done to a minority group, and the people doing them turned out to be really bad people, trumpeting a false threat for profoundly cynical reasons.
I am just so disturbed by seeing those in charge of my country so closely associated with baseless attacks on a minority, and claims of victimization for the majority - the feeling of deja-vu sometimes gets so strong I want to pinch myself and wake up from the nightmare.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 2:01 PM on April 20, 2005

but then, that'd be sodomy!

I don't think suppositories are considered sodomy. If they were, we'd be hearing about pharmacists refusing to sell them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:04 PM on April 20, 2005

BigLankyBastard - the feeling of deja-vu sometimes gets so strong I want to pinch myself and wake up from the nightmare

I'm with you on this.
posted by ericb at 2:05 PM on April 20, 2005

Hebrews 7:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

Take *that* Leviticus!
posted by Sparx at 2:09 PM on April 20, 2005

When a man has an issue out of his flesh
because of that issue he is unclean.

Every bed whereon he lieth is unclean
and everything whereon he sitteth, unclean

And whosoever toucheth his bed shall be unclean
and he that sitteth whereon he sat shall be unclean

And he who toucheth the flesh of the unclean
becomes unclean

And he beareth any of these things
shall be unclean

And whatever saddle he riddeth upon is unclean
and the vessel of earth that he toucheth unclean

And if any mans seed of copulation go out from him
he is unclean
Every garment, every skin whereon is the seed unclean

And the woman with whom the man shall lie will be unclean
and whosoever toucheth her will be unclean

This is the law of the plague
To teach when it is clean and when it is unclean

And the priest shall look upon the plague
for a rising and for a scab, and for a bright spot

And the priest shall shut up he that hath the plague
He shall carry them forth to a place unclean
He shall separate them in their uncleaness

This is the law of the plague
to teach when it is clean and when it is unclean.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:12 PM on April 20, 2005

I don't think suppositories are considered sodomy. If they were, we'd be hearing about pharmacists refusing to sell them.

it's an extremely subtle (no pun intended) point -- maybe they just didn't think about this before. you may have started a jihad against suppositories!
posted by matteo at 2:13 PM on April 20, 2005

”I think it was ‘Blessed are the cheesemakers.’”

”Ah, what’s so special about the cheesemakers?”

”Well, obviously, it’s not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.”

— Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
posted by cbjg at 2:16 PM on April 20, 2005

jefgodesky, I disagree with your understanding of Leviticus. Though Leviticus is sometimes formally known as Torat Kohanim, "instructions for priests," it is not commonly interpreted by Jews or Christians to have only applied to priests as we know them today.

Leviticus is believed to have been composed in response to Cyrus of Persia giving permission to the Judeans to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. However, in order for them to do so, he demanded that they document their traditional law. So Leviticus is told as instructions to the sons of Aaron, a priesthood "of the people," but it's role is as a record of the people's traditional law.

To imply or state that Leviticus was only meant for priests as we know them today requires a very narrow understanding of the context.
posted by rush at 2:17 PM on April 20, 2005

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, he has a very sharp penis. And blood will be on its head.
posted by mr.marx at 2:18 PM on April 20, 2005

I'm interested in knowing when it became so macho to be totally fucking scared out of your mind all the goddamn time.
posted by Freen at 2:18 PM on April 20, 2005

My view on gay parenting (reproductive) is that it should not be allowed until society is able to cope with homosexuality.

My view is that society will not be able to cope with homosexuality until gay parenting is encouraged.

Nuke Texas.
posted by 3.2.3 at 2:35 PM on April 20, 2005

[cries]
posted by The Baby Jesus at 2:37 PM on April 20, 2005

Texas sucks, except Austin, and they've been gerrymandered into powerlessness.

/former Texan
posted by fungible at 2:41 PM on April 20, 2005

Interesting side note: Friends in the swinger lifestyle tell me that Texas has a huge swinging community... along with Florida, it's supposed to be a major center for folks of that bent. (I don't have a web citation for this, just hearsay based on several conversations). Most women, and quite a few men, in that lifestyle are bisexual. Under this law, they would be denied the opportunity to be foster parents as well (not that anyone would think to check on an ostensibly "normal" couple, which is just more evidence that this legislation is aimed at people who are openly gay).

I am absolutely convinced that for a long time my parents had an open marriage, and that at least one of them was bi. So I kind of resent the implication in this legislation that people who are not in societally-accepted relationships are probably unfit parents, because they were both wonderful, and would have been fantastic foster parents had they gone that route.
posted by the_bone at 2:49 PM on April 20, 2005

My view on gay parenting (reproductive) is that it should not be allowed until society is able to cope with homosexuality.

How on earth can you expect society to learn to cope with homosexuality if you allow the government to label homosexuals as deviants who aren't fit to raise a family?

Perhaps the government also should have waited to give minorities the right to vote until society learned to cope with equal rights.
posted by LeeJay at 3:00 PM on April 20, 2005

I assume you mean "discouraged" rather than "not be allowed"? How would you prevent a lesbian couple from having children?
--
Do you mean "adoptive"? Because it seems like there are quite a number of gay parents out there already, including the ones who procreated when they were desperately pretending to be hetero. Barn door, horse, etc.

When I typed 'not be allowed', I had in mind a recent case where a lesbian couple wanted a baby together using an egg from one implanted into the other. For other cases, read "discouraged".

With all due respect, Boo!, EVERY child in the US (and I'm expecting this is true world-wide) "...will undoubtedly be the victim of bullying and intimidation from its peers..."

Speaking from personal experience here, but bullying at the secondary school (9th year and onwards -- high school?) that I attended was virtually non-existent. However, I would fully expect that the child of a gay couple will be bullied, and to a greater extent than they would otherwise; indeed, the one gay at my school was relentlessly tormented. But perhaps I'm underestimating people.
posted by Boo! at 3:05 PM on April 20, 2005

*sigh* ...and still the stupid old myths about gay parenting and child molestation have to be debunked...

Between 1978 and 2000, 23 studies examined the effects of being raised by lesbian or gay parents. There were total of 615 children of gays and lesbians studied, ranging in age from 18 months to 44 years old. Methods of evaluation were diverse but standardized in order to describe their psychological status, behavioral adjustment, intellectual and cognitive abilities, as well as their sexual orientation and experiences of stigmatization. The scientists who comprehensively reviewed this literature concluded, "Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes." There are certainly those who disagree with this conclusion. Perhaps most notably Paul Cameron, although expelled by the American Psychological Association and denounced by the American Sociological Association for willfully misrepresenting research, continues to express contrary views.

"If the person is already a foster parent, the child would be removed from the home." This bill isn't just banning gay and lesbians from becoming future foster parents, it's taking kids out of stable foster families and turning them over to private enterprise to decide their fate. Anti-gay bigotry is just the handy smokescreen. Privatization is the real agenda. Pity the kids who will be losing real families so they can be efficiently warehoused for maximum corporate profit.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 3:14 PM on April 20, 2005

Religion is NOT a valid way to approach this issue. If foster parents (or potential foster parents) are qualified, then they should be left alone. Asking someone's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

These idiots don't care about the children, they care about politics. If some kids get screwed and if some wonderful foster parents are rejected, no problem. Hell, put the kids in the state system, watch them turn into criminals and then the wonderful Texas penal system can execute them at a young age. Problem solved.
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:15 PM on April 20, 2005

Building your laws on religious dogmas. What is this, Iran?
posted by sveskemus at 3:20 PM on April 20, 2005

Once again, I am relieved to not live in the USA.

MeFi is filled with people who are socially liberal. In fact, my experiences in online communities tends to have be believe that most Americans are socially liberal.

So why in the hell does this kind of shit happen? Don't you people vote?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:23 PM on April 20, 2005

How on earth can you expect society to learn to cope with homosexuality if you allow the government to label homosexuals as deviants who aren't fit to raise a family?

Education.

Where did I say that a homosexual couple were unfit to raise a family?
posted by Boo! at 3:26 PM on April 20, 2005

You didn't, you just want to let the government do so.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:29 PM on April 20, 2005

No surprises that Texans would come up with something so asinine. Look at the rest of their lunatic agenda:

Bill Honoring President Bush Passes House (4/20)
OMGWELUVU DEAR LEADER!!! You useless sycophants.

Reform To Adult And Child Protective Services (4/19)
Actually not bad in principle, but expect the enforcement body to be captured by the private agencies the Texans are selling the foster children of their state to.

King Files Legislation To Protect High School Students From Steroid Use (4/19)
By "protect from", we mean "punish harshly for engaging in". Not a difference a "conservative" can be expected to understand until such time as he personally is at the sharp end of the punishment. Which tends to make conservatives amazingly empathetic all of a sudden. (Q: Why did the conservative support legal, publically funded abortion? A: Because his wife was raped by a black man. Q: Why did the conservative support employee rights? A: Because he got fired. Q: Why did the conservative support public defenders? A: Because he got caught.)

Bill To End Statute Of Limitation For Sexual Abuse Set For Monday Hearing (4/18)
Yeah, because sexual abuse is so uniquely bad that it specifically, unlike murder, rape of an adult, armed robbery, and a wide range of other bad things, rates no limitation period.

Blue Ribbon Task Force Honored At Capitol (4/15)
Good to see they're into self-sycophancy too.

Callegari Passes Medlin - Wollam Act Protecting Peace Officers From Drunk Drivers (4/14)
Again, "protect" means "punish harshly after the fact". Not one peace officer will be protected by this stupid act, because not one drunk driver thinks "OMG a peace officer, better not hit him!" Does Texas have a breath-tested drink-driving limit yet?

First Lady And State Officials Urge Texans To “ Prevent A Tragedy – Test Your Baby ” (4/14)
The extra tests can be obtained for the mere sum of $25, ie the price of a case of beer. Common sense would suggest these tests be done before the baby and mother leave the hospital ... but then, the hospital system funding in Texas is controlled by compassionate conservatives, so it's likely that baby and mother will leave the hospital as soon as she can stand up again, lest she be charged a daily fee for the bed.

The trouble with arguing with conservatives is this: if they were smart, they wouldn't be conservatives.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:30 PM on April 20, 2005

How on earth can you expect society to learn to cope with homosexuality if you allow the government to label homosexuals as deviants who aren't fit to raise a family?

Education.

Sending a message to people who are already prejudiced against homosexuals that the govt. doesn't think gays and bisexuals are fit to parent just reinforces their belief that there's something unnatural and dangerous about homosexuality. At the same time you would have the same govt. attempt to "educate" others about learning to cope with homosexuality? How would that work, exactly?

Where did I say that a homosexual couple were unfit to raise a family?

What sonofsamiam said.
posted by LeeJay at 3:38 PM on April 20, 2005

"It seems that Rep. Talton has been at this for a while. From an Austin Chronicle article from 2003, Talton has said that homosexuality 'just like pedophilia is a learned behavior' and that rather than the horror of children growing up with two loving parents who happen to be gay or bisexual, 'quite frankly, if it was me I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages. ... At least they have a chance of learning the proper values, and if that's not important, than I don't know what is.'" [AMERICAblog | April 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:42 PM on April 20, 2005

*than (sic) I don't know what is*
posted by ericb at 3:44 PM on April 20, 2005

Related - and admittedly off-topic...this just in ...

Connecticut Approves Civil Unions for Gays
"Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples — and the first to do so without being forced by the courts."
posted by ericb at 3:53 PM on April 20, 2005

At no point did I say that homosexual parenting should be discouraged because they would be unfit parents. I said that it should be discouraged at the present time because the child would be victimised by their peers (warning: .DOC) for having gay parents. By all means, if studies show that my fears are unfounded, homosexual couples should be given identical rights as heterosexual couples, but until then I think it would be unwise to pretend that the world is as liberal as we'd all like it to be.
posted by Boo! at 3:54 PM on April 20, 2005

Since the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual, I think ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to be foster parents.
Exactly. These imbeciles give Texas an even worse name (which i didn't think was possible). Even Florida allows gay parents to foster parent.
posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on April 20, 2005

I said that it should be discouraged at the present time because the child would be victimised by their peers (warning: .DOC) for having gay parents.

that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. how are people gonna shed their prejudices if they're not exposed to the truth?
posted by mcsweetie at 4:00 PM on April 20, 2005

and children are already victimized by their peers for everything from a bad haircut to being fat or tall or short or ugly or too dark or too light or weird or gay or artsy or goth or....
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on April 20, 2005

At no point did I say that homosexual parenting should be discouraged because they would be unfit parents

At no point did anyone infer that you did. What several of us did say was that letting the government bar homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents sends the message that they are unfit to parent, which reinforces the idea that they are abnormal, which allows those who are prejudiced against gays to continue in their ignorance, which guarantees that children growing up with GLBT parents will continue to be victimized.

Your solution does nothing but brush the problem under the rug and any efforts to educate the public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuals will be written off as hypocritical and lame by the very people those efforts are meant to reach.
posted by LeeJay at 4:21 PM on April 20, 2005

Maybe we should build an island for all the homosexuals so that there is no way possible they will ever come into contact with out children. There, solved the problem.

AHHHHHHHHHHH! I can't wait to get out of this filthy state.
posted by JPowers at 4:23 PM on April 20, 2005

I don't want to jump on Boo, but s/he is assuming that all foster children will be comfortable with a straight family. Gay youth growing up in a rabidly homophobic state may need gay role models, particularly if they have been victims of sexual abuse, bullying, or have been thrown out by their straight families.

I'll go as far as to say that perhaps special care should go to selecting children to be put in gay homes. Foster children need to feel comfortable. But the needs of children should be decided by social workers and other professionals.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:24 PM on April 20, 2005

So why in the hell does this kind of shit happen?

Because there are more of them then there are of us, and they live in places where homogenity = safety and security, and prying into the affairs of others = being neighborly. That they hide behind the Constitution and the Bible is an insult to our founding fathers and God Himself. And they know it, which is why they band together every Sunday to remind each other of how much better they are than everyone else. With any luck, they're right about the Apocolypse, because Lord knows they'll be the first to be smited.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:26 PM on April 20, 2005

PS. I hope to become a foster parent specifically because some kid may need me. Foster parents are in pretty short supply.

And personally, I'd love to get some gay boy or girl out of an uncivilized and hostile environment like, say, Texas.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:30 PM on April 20, 2005

I don't understand why people hate Texas so much. It seems to be because people disagree with our political leadership. That's not much different than the fools who hated all of France for not supporting the U.S. in the Iraq war.

It just seems like such an unsophisticated view to hear all the time. Any help here? Why are we so hated?
posted by rush at 4:44 PM on April 20, 2005

first of all - wow. this is my first post here so hello.

quick intro - i'm a texan native whose been transplanted to florida. (out of the frying pan - into the fire) i'm here with my partner of 6+ years. ... and i'm an adoption counselor.

my entire job (and joy) is to get foster children adopted out of the system by relatives, foster parents, or "matched" families.

i find it terribly ironic that i act as legal guardian for 20+ children, make all major decisions for their lives, plus can approve or deny a family who wants to adopt them - but i could not adopt one of them myself.

wow - banning homosexual individuals & couples from even acting as foster parents - that's going to be a huge blow to the system in general. there's an incredible shortage of foster parents - especially ones who care more about the children than the board payment.

someone mentioned they agreed with this idea because the kids would be stigmatized due to their foster parents' orientation - listen.. these kids don't care. they are more worried about being 'outed' as foster kids than they are about who their parents are. my older kids figure out i'm gay when they realize what the rainbow sticker means on my car - and they could care less. i can't count how many have asked me if i would adopt them - because i'm the one person in their life that loves them and shows it.

this is sad. but it makes my job that much more important.

wow.
posted by snack at 5:02 PM on April 20, 2005 [1 favorite]

*hugs snack*
posted by matteo at 5:12 PM on April 20, 2005

this is sad. but it makes my job that much more important.

snack, thanks so much for a little insider's perspective. And thanks for doing such important work.

i find it terribly ironic that i act as legal guardian for 20+ children, make all major decisions for their lives, plus can approve or deny a family who wants to adopt them - but i could not adopt one of them myself.

The whole thing really is complete nonsense. It's so ridiculous.
posted by LeeJay at 5:15 PM on April 20, 2005

five fresh fish - Sadly enough, the voters in Texas voted in the people that vote for bills such as this one.

rush - I didn't and don't hate the people of Texas. Texas has some of the nicest, friendliest people I've ever met. However, the majority is extremely conservative and that's scary to a person like me. I was glad to move to Seattle (and am now in Canada).
posted by deborah at 5:30 PM on April 20, 2005

[i heart snack]
posted by OhPuhLeez at 5:52 PM on April 20, 2005

It's people like snack and posts like his/hers that help to move the discussion beyond the "abstract" to the "real."

*also hugs snack* - and hopes to learn more about the twinkie later! ;-)
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on April 20, 2005

At no point did I say that homosexual parenting should be discouraged because they would be unfit parents. I said that it should be discouraged at the present time because the child would be victimised by their peers (warning: .DOC) for having gay parents. By all means, if studies show that my fears are unfounded, homosexual couples should be given identical rights as heterosexual couples, but until then I think it would be unwise to pretend that the world is as liberal as we'd all like it to be.

This is stupid. You're proposing that we deprive children of capable parents and capable parents of children, not to mention the social message that this sends, because the kids might be teased? Children victimize each other; it's what they do. Choosing this specific situation to get all hand-wringing about name calling, then to blithely assume that the solution, rather than education, rather than calling on schools to stop bullying, is ridiculous. It amounts to a very, very thinly veiled justification of your own bigotry.

Also, if you think that no one in your high school was getting bullied, it's because you were the bully.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:58 PM on April 20, 2005

*eep*

thanks hearts & hugs! (ericb - the twinkie story is for another time and place! *grin*)

i have discussed this very topic (well, the gay adoption ban topic - not the texas vs. gay foster parents) with my director at length. her favorite comment is that i should just take my harder to place children home with me and adopt them myself. then we both stop and say - oh, i forgot.

someone else asked on here how bisexuals could be found out if they were in a hetero relationship. well, in florida, there's a direct question on the application - if you mark "no" to the question and it is found out later ... they can overturn the adoption.

and sadly enough, some people would pursue the issue strongly enough to have the finalization overturned.
posted by snack at 6:07 PM on April 20, 2005

*Piles on snackhugs*
posted by kamikazegopher at 6:23 PM on April 20, 2005

late to the thread, but I've just gotta say this to Texas:

"Oh no you fucking didn't!"

I do foster care licensing and training here in the Bible Belt buckle, and I'm *honored* to have licensed a same sex home a few months ago, and they're one of the best that I've got. I just got home from meeting with another couple that will be licensed in a month. These two families are among the most committed families I've ever worked with. With the one that's already received children, they work with such dignity with the birth families that they're begun to earn a strong reputation as highly therapeutic and highly desirable among local child welfare agencies.

Big Purple Gay Goddess forbid if NC ever went there, they'd have a mean fight on in Raleigh, and the bastards would lose. As a gay man, I "donated" to a lesbian couple so they could be a family. The plan is for one of the women to adopt her while the birth mother retains custodial rights... rather a lot of hoops to jump through to become a family. If any laws were passed that prevented this, it's the children... my biological daughter... that lose the stability and security of growing up in a legally recognized family. And would the Bible bigots win? Fuck no, because no one wins when they spit on love for the sake of their own piggish mediocrity.

OK, I'm done reacting now. Fucking Texas.
posted by moonbird at 6:30 PM on April 20, 2005

[social worker shout out to moonbird]

this field needs more of us.
posted by snack at 6:34 PM on April 20, 2005

At no point did I say that homosexual parenting should be discouraged because they would be unfit parents. I said that it should be discouraged at the present time because the child would be victimised by their peers (warning: .DOC) for having gay parents.

That's the same argument that a bunch of people used as a justification for prohibiting interracial marriages, because of the potential of victimization of interracial children. You know, because it was better to deny people their civil rights than to teach our children to not act like little terrorizing idiots to other kids.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just an interracial bisexual foster parent.
posted by Dreama at 6:40 PM on April 20, 2005

Bill To End Statute Of Limitation For Sexual Abuse Set For Monday Hearing (4/18)

Yeah, because sexual abuse is so uniquely bad that it specifically, unlike murder, rape of an adult, armed robbery, and a wide range of other bad things, rates no limitation period.

Sexual abuse is unique. It can take decades for a sexual abuse survivor to come to terms with what happened and find the courage to prevent the abuser from having the opportunity to abuse again.

Of the bills you listed, this is the one bill that makes good sense.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:46 PM on April 20, 2005

But what the hell do I know, I'm just an interracial bisexual foster parent.

In a wheelchair? Come on, go for the discrimination trifecta!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:49 PM on April 20, 2005

Dreama: you just ruled.
Snack: right back atcha!
posted by moonbird at 7:00 PM on April 20, 2005

Can we just give Texas back to Mexico? That is, if they'll have it back, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:08 PM on April 20, 2005

Excellent.
Only heterosexual people should raise kids, after all, it's not like kids raised by heterosexuals ever become homosexual.

OH WAIT.....
posted by nightchrome at 8:54 PM on April 20, 2005

I propose, to prevent any and all child sexual abuse within the foster system, that only homosexual males can be foster parents for girls and homosexual females can be foster parents for boys.

I mean, come on, wouldn't that take care of the problem?

/listens for crickets.
posted by Hactar at 9:23 PM on April 20, 2005

At no point did I say that homosexual parenting should be discouraged because they would be unfit parents. I said that it should be discouraged at the present time because the child would be victimised by their peers (warning: .DOC) for having gay parents. By all means, if studies show that my fears are unfounded, homosexual couples should be given identical rights as heterosexual couples, but until then I think it would be unwise to pretend that the world is as liberal as we'd all like it to be.

In addition to the problems others have already brought up, this logic could be used to exclude almost anyone from foster parenting. Geeks, black people, East Asians, Jewish people, fat people, atheists, poor people and lots of other groups get victimized by their peers. By your logic, black people shouldn't be allowed to be foster parents until black people are no longer subject to racism. Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to become foster parents because there are still Jew-bashers out there. Do you see how faulty this logic is?

posted by jiawen at 9:50 PM on April 20, 2005

five fresh fish writes " Once again, I am relieved to not live in the USA.

"MeFi is filled with people who are socially liberal. In fact, my experiences in online communities tends to have be believe that most Americans are socially liberal.

"So why in the hell does this kind of shit happen? Don't you people vote?"


I experience the same cognitive dissonance. My current theory is that all Americans we meet online in online foruns are always the same five hundred or so, disguised under different nicknames. I believe there is enough lexical and orthographical evidence to show that matt, rusty and taco are the same person. There are also strong indications that among those five hundred there are three trolls, four spammers and exactly one person sharing all copyrighted material available.
posted by nkyad at 10:32 PM on April 20, 2005

Crap, we've been found out!
posted by nightchrome at 10:53 PM on April 20, 2005

nkyad writes "I believe there is enough lexical and orthographical evidence to show that matt, rusty and taco are the same person. There are also strong indications that among those five hundred there are three trolls, four spammers and exactly one person sharing all copyrighted material available"

I am quonsar.

(And also Steve_at_Linnwood.)
posted by orthogonality at 1:01 AM on April 21, 2005

As long as we're deciding who can be allowed to foster children, can we PLEASE exclude rednecks? And how about religious fundies? These groups simply are not fit. Not only will the children get bullied and teased, but these sorts of persons will teach anti-social habits to vulnerable children. And from what I recall, the fundies are the worse at that (I knew a lot of kids that were fostered).

I know nothing about fostering of small children, but I know more than I like about the fostering of adolescents (does anyone do that anymore, or do they just lock 'em up?) What a horror! Yea, I'm gay and a bit prejudiced, but geez, a pair of rational gays or lesbians would be amazingly superior to what passed for foster parents where I grew up. As someone (smack?) said, the trick is to find those that care more for the kids than that damn check they get from the state.

As someone observed, there are even those kids who would best (ONLY) be served by gay foster parents, and those are at least some of the gay kids. When I was a gay kid, I trusted NO ONE but my fellow gay people, after months of serious abuse because I was gay.

This thread has me regretting my life style in that it prevents my partner and I from considering fostering, as we move internationally for his career. What a shame, we'd make great parents to the right kids.
posted by Goofyy at 3:22 AM on April 21, 2005

In my first post I didn't say that gay adoption (and fostering) should be banned. I said that the positives should be weighed against the negatives. I also said that I wasn't sufficiently familiar with the state of adoption (and fostering) to have a strong opinion with regard to this. Reading snack's comment, it does seem that the positives far outweigh the negatives and a parent's sexual orientation would certainly be irrelevant in most cases.

My 'not allowed' comment was aimed at the lesbian couple, who wanted a baby via IVF, who I linked to in my second comment. It was not aimed at fostering, or adoption. I feel that the IVF couple is a different issue to inter-racial marriage, etc., because it involves medical intervention: this raises ethical issues. With regard to the message that the government would be sending out by doing this, why can they not give their reasons behind their decision, instead of allowing people with infer their own?
posted by Boo! at 5:39 AM on April 21, 2005

What are the ethical issues of allowing lesbian couples to have IVF that worry you, Boo? Is it the IVF itself--and in that case, is it OK for straight couples to use IVF--or does it go back to the discrimination issue that others have already addressed? I mean, all pregnancies involve medical intervention in some fashion. I dunno what the difference is here.

The government cannot explain its actions in this situation because there's no explanation beyond "We're a bunch of nitwits!", and that tends to not sit well with voters. :/
posted by schroedinger at 6:39 AM on April 21, 2005

So, if we're really going to make laws governing reproduction based on who's going to tease whom, will you be excluding fat people from breeding? Ugly people? Stupid people? People who are athletically inept? People who are good at math? How about people who wear funny clothes or have big hair? Because the children of all of these people are going to be teased.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:42 AM on April 21, 2005

The article also mentions that some of Texas's child services will be privatized. This seems rather disturbing: private business works because of profits. What type of profits can be made from providing foster care? What are the implications for children in a private system?

"Private" may get dirty-word status here undeservedly. Private doesn't necessarily mean for-profit; I write grants for a private non-profit that provides foster care and adoption services (largely for children with special needs, including therapeutic/treatment FC for kids with emotional problems and FC for medically fragile kids) which receives contract funding from the state. Our permanency department is careful and committed, subject to strong quality-assurance review, and underfunded only insofar as the state deems worthy. Profit isn't the motive.

I don't know if that's the case in Texas, but I'm hoping that at least a good chunk of that state funding will go to agencies like mine. I have to wonder, though, how many of their agencies are religiously affiliated and what the effect of that might be on the way they do business and on their kids. My agency has no religious affiliation, encourages GLBT adoption and foster care, and has several permanency staff members who are openly gay. Then again, I live in good sensible Connecticut, and am hugely grateful for that fact.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:43 AM on April 21, 2005

i forgot to mention that in the county i live/work in - has privatized foster care/adoptions. it's not a bad situation by any stretch but it does create some interesting situations where one agency does it one way & another agency does it another...

my agency has the sole adoption contract for our county - this is significant because we're the only set up like this in the state. all other counties have multiple agencies doing adoptions. so, sometimes, privatization can be beneficial.... like dlugoczaj mentioned.
posted by snack at 8:19 AM on April 21, 2005

My experience working for a private company that handled work-related injury cases was that in the private system people's needs were often overlooked in the interest of "efficiency." I can't tell you how many overwieght, 60-year-old women with back injuries were assigned to "security guard" for their retraining. It was an incredibly frustrating experience. Admittedly, this was not a NPO, and I don't know what it was like before, but the experience has left me with a dread of what "privatization" means for needy individuals.
posted by carmen at 8:24 AM on April 21, 2005

I don't want to be accused of repeating myself, but I want to address the question of why these discriminatory laws are being passed - it's demagoguerry all over again, just like Germany in the Thirties. One well-organized group of vocal leaders are whipping prejudiced mobs into political participation by making them fearful of an "enemy" in their midst. In prewar Germany, they started by stigmatizing Jews, and carried on by taking their right to own businesses, and houses, and we all know where it ended up. Does this trend sound familiar?
I see this law as part of the first stage of a campaign to seize and hold on to power through demagogue tactics. This campaign will, of necessity, entail the destruction of many of the principles that we love as Americans - especially equal rights and the right to left the hell alone. We need to call the demagogues on it, loudly and clearly. We (rationalists) need to get organized, before we need to become an underground resistance movement. Humanity has been down this road before, and I don't like the looks of the future.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 9:12 AM on April 21, 2005

Boo, I'm getting the impression that you're aware at some level that you are unfairly prejudiced, but aren't quite prepared to admit it, examine it, and change it; hence, you continue to defend it.

It's part of that human trap of "being right." It sucks to be wrong, so we humans typically expend a lot of energy to be right, even when we know we're wrong.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:49 AM on April 21, 2005

Some may want to read the decision in Palmore v. Sidoti, which dealt with racial preferences in adoption laws. This bill is wrong for the same reasons, whether the bigots want to admit it or not. Of course, I bet money that many of the sponsors were outraged by Palmore too.
posted by norm at 11:39 AM on April 21, 2005

I was bullied in my middle school (years 5-8). Sometimes I felt like getting on a bus and leaving. Sometimes I didn't feel like I wanted to live anymore. Despite what someone said earlier, children aren't really that resilient.

I suppose what I am advocating is discrimination, but I'm not totally convinced that creating a baby, via artificial means, knowing that it's likely to be put in the same situation as I, is the right thing to do.

Maybe my feelings are really just thinly veiled prejudice, and if they are I apologise. But understand that's it's not a conscious thing, and that I'll do my best to become a better person.
posted by Boo! at 11:45 AM on April 21, 2005

Boo! -
My Mom and Dad divorced when I was two because after I was born, my Mom came to the realization that she is gay. I was blessed with a loving mother & father who were both actively invovled in my upbringing. What do you propose should have happened to me? Should I have been denied contact with my own mother because of her sexual orientation?
posted by raedyn at 12:31 PM on April 21, 2005

I believe you're actively engaged in becoming that better person, Boo. You're obviously straddling a fence and it's plain that you want to come down off it: you just haven't identified which side to is best.

I suggest you read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It's also available in print form, and, frankly, it is much easier to read when it's in a book.

I think you'll find that McWilliam's thesis will go a long way to settling your uncertainty regarding the appropriate level of government control over people's lives.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:40 PM on April 21, 2005

homosexual or bisexual

Well, shit. I knew I shouldn't have jacked off with that guy.
posted by Tlogmer at 12:34 AM on April 26, 2005