(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

[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.