(Untitled)

[din_din_dote]

So holy shit.

the state will be allowed to investigate the backgrounds of current
foster parents and remove children living in non-heterosexual
households.

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

Incredible.These congressmen are the same people that yell and

Comments

[ithryn]

Hey, I noticed you friended me. I'm curious where you found me.

I wanted to comment on this, since no one is talking from the infamous other side. But I don't think you're thinking this evenly. To you, the sexuality of gays may be perfectly healthy. But that's not above question for everyone, and trust me, I've seen most every argument in its favor and I still can't buy it. And I've lived and worked pretty extensively and pleasantly among homosexuals. It's not like I think they're the scum of the earth. There is a difference between the question of the morality or tastefulness of homosexuality, and the psychological health of it. Psychologists (and the rest of society) accepted that homosexuals aren't necessarily morally inferior, and therefore they concluded that their sexuality must be psychologically sound. That's an assumptive leap. You can make it, and I won't hate you, but I don't make it.

But anyway, there are tons of values, including sexual values, which I don't want people passing on to kids, and I don't mind legislating them. Would you feel the same if we were talking about polygamous religious-right parents in Utah? I love how this article only talks about decreasing the pool of available foster parents. Sorry, I don't want the state granting freaky Mormons custody of helpless children either. There are plenty of people who should be disqualified. And I know this sounds terrible to you, but I can't say I feel less disturbed by homosexuals being granted such custody, though for different reasons as I allude to above.

But let's assume I'm wrong in my doubt and that homosexuality is an unquestionably healthy sexuality. It still correlates with a higher suicide rate. People who presume that homosexuality is healthy explain this (they have to) only in terms of their persecution. Well, fine, let's assume that's true. If homosexuals have trouble coming to grips with being openly gay in society, or society has trouble coming to grips with homosexuals in their midst, what do you think the suicide rate will be among foster kids being raised by gay parents? We're talking about helpless kids being controlled by the state here: this issue has more to think about than just scoring a sociopolitical point about making all types of sexualities equal. We can sacrifice all sorts of things to our cause, but not kids who need help.

[din_din_dote]

I know what you are saying and I understand it but I need to think more on it before I come to any real conclusions. Here are some small replies,

"Would you feel the same if we were talking about polygamous religious-right parents in Utah?"

Maybe. The important thing we're talking about here is parenting and if the 'agency' interviews whoever is applying for to be a foster parent and deems they can be able and loving parents - and yes, activities of the parents should be taken into account.

What is important to me is that these things should consider the individuals in question and their ability to parent. Eliminating whole demographics doesn't make any sense to me.

"Sorry, I don't want the state granting freaky Mormons custody of helpless children either."

I don't want the state granting 'freaky' anybody custody of helpless children. And freaky is the key word there, not mormon. I don't think all homosexuals are 'freaky' like I don't think all heterosexuals are 'freaky'.

"It still correlates with a higher suicide rate."

Potentially suicidal homosexuals should not be granted custody of children, just as potentially suicidal anyone should not be. (same thing I stressed above)

"If homosexuals have trouble coming to grips with being openly gay in society, or society has trouble coming to grips with homosexuals in their midst, what do you think the suicide rate will be among foster kids being raised by gay parents?"

That is a good point. If a certain homosexual couple lives in a community where homosexuals are not viewed too kindly, then, yes, it might not be a good idea.

That again is the circumstance/individual consideration as opposed to a universal ban.

[ithryn]

Well, that's the crux: you think homosexuals are basically normal, and I (and I imagine these lawmakers) don't. I don't mean any offense by that to anyone; I just don't. I think ED people have serious deep-seated problems, too, even though there are plenty of Livejournal communities devoted to being a safe haven for thinking it is normal, and if diagnosed uncured anorexics were ever universally excluded from foster care or adoptions (as I think they should be), they'd be all up in arms.

Don't worry, I won't keep harassing you with my opinion. And I can't say for sure that those infamous Texas lawmakers thought as I do about this. But I imagine it's something very similar. People say that homosexuals can't make a family unit, and I agree-not because I believe that every child adopted by homosexuals will turn out awry, but because I think that homosexuality is not a healthy sexuality. And parental sexuality in a family is more important than most people think. This issue is constantly arranged to look like it's about rights, when I think it's really about basic bio/psychology. If you (not you personally, but the side of society represented by you) could illustrate why homosexuality is actually normal and in order, then the equality question is already taken care of.

And thanks for friending me. I too find it's good to be open.

[din_din_dote]

Oh and I added you because I saw your post/comments somewhere (destroying moderately mindless liberals) and I like smart conservatives. I'm open politically but what I don't like is the 'new republican.'