Couldn't your logic be extrapolated to disallow inner-city families, lower-income families, some ethnicities and some religions?
Excellent, basso. I agree completely. And I deeply hope your party changes on this front so you won't be forced to become a Democrat.
PhiSlamma: My very dear grandmother, who's now passed, made the exact same argument against interracial marriage. The EXACT same. She was a wonderful woman, but she was raised in a racist era, just as surely as you're a fine fellow who's been raised in a homophobic one. And she always said her opposition to interracial marriage was all about giving the kids a chance to be raised without issues. Like basso said, every kid's raised with issues because every parent has issues. That's not an excuse for bigotry.
p.s. If anyone here is a fan of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and beyond, you're looking at (at least half of) the next phase. Equal rights for blacks was difficult and that era had to overcome the same things gays do now, but now we all agree it was worth it and it went too slow. We also all agree now that the incremental nature of the whole thing was utter crap. We'll say the same about gay rights not more than twenty years from now. p.p.s. The other half of the next Civil Rights movement is abortion. That one's actually tremendously complicated to navigate, but this one isn't.
You're right to say they're no better, but you don't say why. D's suck on this because they're cowardly and they're about winning above all else. To Kerry's credit though, Newsweek's excellent behind-the-scenes post-election serial revealed that Clinton advised him to go hard against gay marriage, that he was getting killed on that issue, and Kerry said he wouldn't do it. The difference between the parties is that the GOP is driving the debate, pushing the wedge issue to their advantage, and the D's are pathetically following because they understand, realistically, that right now it's not a winning issue. Shame on your guy for making it that way. Shame on our guys for not standing up to his bigotry.
You're also right that Kerry lost last year because he failed to stand up for his principles. The Dems have been doing that for years. But that's not the same as not having principles, or, at least equally bad, having the wrong ones.
i would argue that the democrat's wrong principles in certain areas trump the republican's in others....oh, and i could never join aany party that would actually accept me as a member!
Interestingly enough, Groucho Marx was on Nixon's watchlist, because he once told a college reporter that the only hope for the country was if Nixon was assassinated, or words to that effect.
i guess you're not pro-choice! but to the larger point, do you believe people really "choose" to be gay, outside a little experimenting freshman year at bryn mawr?
I have no idea. There is a pretty good split in the homosexual community over whether its genetic or by choice. The concept that gay parents could 'make their kids gay' is castigated heavily, but if being homosexual IS environment not genetic, then it would seem to be a valid concern. Whether that chance outweighs NOT having a foster family at all is another question as well, but I think the attitude that this is prehistoric thinking is off base.
Some homosexuals I have talked to assume most pastors are Gay Bashers. I would define that as having a bitter calloused hateful spirit. So if you are not politically correct in this area, be careful. I want to respond to this issue in a careful way. Let me first say that I have had a friendship with two men in Houston who are heterosexuals, one now married, who both spent years living a homosexual lifestyle, advocates of gay rights, and believing firmly that they were born orientated sexually as homosexuals. They both have told me that they are grateful for the change that has occured in their lives, and that they feel respectfully wrong about their prior conclusions. I must confess after getting to know them and listening to their stories it is hard for me to believe their former sexual practices were driven by DNA at birth (Orientation). I have read of many groups made up of former homosexuals with the same experience. Orientation once seemed the bedrock reason for their lifestyle only for them to change and come to a completely different conclusion. Another experience has been my discussions with many homosexuals who explain to me how they entered into the homosexual lifestyle. The number who admitted a progression of choices leading them to homosexuality or bi-sexuality was surprising to me. Some homosexuals have admitted to me it was process of change more than an orientation. Many homosexuals I have talked to have told me definately, absolutely it is a birth orientation. My discussions have come from talking to many in the gay lifestyle in the efforts of Christian evangelism. So this will make much of what I am saying dismissable to many who disagree. I only share this because I have found it next to impossible to debate either side of the issue of whether someone is born with a homosexual orientation or if it is a condition that develops from very complex factors. This is a very important factor when discussing anything relating to the Gay Lifestyle because each premise has the defining impact upon the discussion. So here is a take on Texans to ban gay foster parents- 1. Why are there foster children and can the numbers be reduced? 2. Since all children have a father and a mother as first parents what can prevent the factors that contribute to the abandonment of the children. 3. What makes first parents good parents and how would children benefit if their father and mother were good parents. 4. Since homosexuals cannot procreate (get together and get one another pregnant) and they define themselves homosexuals by virtue of their sexual practices, do their sexual practices give them qualifications as a good parent? In other words does a man having sexual relations with other men provide special parenting skills. (The reason I ask this question is because when children are born the responsibility to parent is always first assumed to the man and the woman responsible.) In other words when a man and woman procreate their is an equal parenting responsibility, thus both should have the shared responsibility and should be equally necessary for good parenting. This should be considered because it is a shame no one wants to answer the question what can produce greater success for the original parents? Nobody ever gets to the heart of problems like what changes do we need to make in society that would result in a very significant increase of procreating parents becoming successful parents. Now to the issue of gay parents- If you believe that homosexuals are born with that orientation this legislation is cruel and unfair. If you believe that homosexuals are developed through complex choices then you must have some moral conclusion about the practice of homosexuality. You must come to conclusions as to whether as a behavior it is right and virtuous behavior or wrong and damaging behavior. And you must come to a decision regarding parenting based upon these conclusions. If homosexuality is normal and healthy for children - the proper response here is a no brainer. Back in the early 80's my brother's next door neighbor was a homosexual man. We got to know him, a nice guy to talk to. Probably wouldn't have known his sexual activity if he hadn't told my brother who then introduced me. He told us about the parties he had at his house. Drinking, music and then sex with several different men. New men partners seemed to be more exciting. Nice as he seemed the description I was given didn't make me want to recommend him as a foster parent.
ditto thegary's comment, but i wonder if you could elaborate on what "the choices" or "progression" was that attracted someone to the homosexual lifestyle? and i assume by lifestyle you're not talking about nice clothes and stylish apartments, because you could get those as a straight man. no, for someone to be attracted by the homosexual lifestyle, they'd have to be at some level attracted to (as a man) ass-sex or sucking ****, which i might add is the very definition of being gay.
I think what some people might take issue with in #4 is the assumption that homosexuality can be reduced to sexual practices. In doing so, it's unfortunately really easy to compartmentalize homosexuality -- separating, and emphasizing the physical acts above (or below, if you're thinking about it as deviant) the other aspects of healthy human relationships... it overshadows their capacity to love other people (friends, relatives, adopted children, etc.) in a non-sexual way.
Again if it is a choice, then I would ask all heterosexuals when they decided they would like the opposite sex, instead of the same sex. I would ask all heterosexuals if the choice was difficult. I do believe it is a choice, at least in many cases. I for one never chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. It was always the case that the opposite sex is what occupied my thoughts and desires. I never had to consider or choose. It was just not appealing to me.
