Ban on gay adoptions: GOP ploy for elections 2006

[aidanjm]

More than a dozen US states amended their constitution or passed legislation to ban same-sex marriage in 2004. Republicans won lots of votes through this exploitation of US citizens' hatred of homosexual people. You can't ban gay marriage more than once, so now Republicans and conservative christian groups require a 'new' way of tapping into the homophobia and hatred that won them so many votes in 2004. Thus in 2006 at least 16 US states are considering laws or ballot initiatives restricting the ability of gay individuals or couples to adopt. Note that there is no medical or psychological justification for these laws (rather the aim here seems to be to punish homosexuals and win votes in the process):

"a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual." - American Academy of Pediatrics

It really makes you wonder what anti-gay ploy Republicans and jesus freaks will come up with in 2008.


Battling for Our Children

Romney Uses Gay Adoption As Issue In Presidential Bid

San Francisco Catholic Diocese Seeks Way To Ban Gay Adoptions, Boston Diocese To End All Adoptions Over Gays

 

[Aimster]

I love gay people
Please stop posting

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I love gay people
Please stop posting

I like to post on gay related issues that are of interest to me.

If you can't deal with that, or if you have a problem with me or with gay people in general, then please stay out of my threads.

 

[Stunt]

These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

 

[shrumpage]

This is a very stupid move on republicans.

 

[Aimster]

calm down

I was just kidding with u

 

[Gabe Asher]

I don't think that gay couples should be able to adopt.

They are in an unnatural relationship and then want kids? Ridiculous. They can't have kids. It's not like one of them is sterile or otherwise has reproductive problems.

If they choose to be in an unnatural relationship, they know that having kids is impossible. That is a choice they should have to live with.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gabe Asher
I don't think that gay couples should be able to adopt.

They are in an unnatural relationship and then want kids? Ridiculous. They can't have kids. It's not like one of them is sterile or otherwise has reproductive problems.

If they choose to be in an unnatural relationship, they know that having kids is impossible. That is a choice they should have to live with.

There are more kids waiting to be adopted than there are straight or gay couples or singles looking to adopt. Banning gay singles or couples from adopting kids just means more kids will be raised in foster homes or institutions. Be aware that it is typically the kids dying of cancer or HIV/ AIDS or kids who are older, handicapped, of mixed race or who have chronic behavioral issues who are given to gay couples to adopt. This happens because for the most part heterosexual couples are not willing to adopt "defective" children. Heterosexual couples prefer to adopt "perfect" children who are very young and have no serious health issues. Presumably these ill or acting out kids won't be able to be adopted out anymore. Furthermore, it's just plain mean spirited. You're using the power of the state to single out a specific group of people for harsh treatment, with no credible reason for doing so.

 

[ericlp]

This is what happens when you have a president(idiot) handing out chash (ahem your tax money) to churches as if it were candy.

 

[Cerb]

My inner Liberal (with a capital L) is coming out, now (it was in the closet for a few minutes as I read the 9/11 and nuking Iran threads, you know )...

Those attempting to ban marriage and homoseuxal adoption need to...

a. Get off the Theocratic high horse. The Government should have no business in defining marriage as more than a legal rights and property contract between any two people that takes precedence over family, friends, and nexts of kin. That's it. It is entirely about the right to make decisions, and take ownership of possessions, in the case that the partner can't. This is why priests can't marry (aside: this is not to say they cannot be married, BTW). If someone will trust snother person to handle this responsibility and power, it should not matter if they are both of the same sex.

b. Try to get comfortable with their own sexuality. I have a sneaking suspicion more than a handful of people heavily against these things are homosexual or bisexual themselves, and in denial, because they were taught that it (what they are) is wrong, and they are projecting out their loathing for themselves.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

How so? They didn't play into the gay marriage thing in 2004, they just ignored it. I guess they need practice exploiting people's fears like the repugs.

 

[techs]

This appeared yesterday.
http://www.reformer.com/region/ci_3591626

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.
The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract. It said that the state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.


Interestingly the Catholic Church has had no problem with gay Priests up to very recently.

 

[johnnobts]

its a private institution's perrogative not to relinquish custody of their children to certain individuals. if you remember, a protestant children's home refused consideration of catholic families, favoring protestant ones.

you need to be aware of the wishes of the biological parents in these cases. if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

 

[johnnobts]

How so? They didn't play into the gay marriage thing in 2004, they just ignored it. I guess they need practice exploiting people's fears like the repugs.

____

dems have been doing this, the Dubai Ports Deal. Saying we don't want arabs running our ports, *but now b/c they're arabs (wink wink).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
its a private institution's perrogative not to relinquish custody of their children to certain individuals. if you remember, a protestant children's home refused consideration of catholic families, favoring protestant ones.

you need to be aware of the wishes of the biological parents in these cases. if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

Funny how the bigoted have no problem aborting their children's opportunities to grow out of bigotry, think 'willingly kill children's minds' here, but fanatically want to preserve a few cells in some unrelated woman, that don't even have a mind yet. But then, the thing about blindness is that the blind can't see.

 

[EatSpam]

Sounds about right. Don't run on a real issue.

The whole gay adoption "problem" could be solved like this:

If the birth mother doesn't want her child adopted by a gay couple, she'll indicate that when she gives up her child.

That's it. No state involvement. No stupid pandering Jesus laws.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Stunt
These wedge issues are so dumb...and the democrats play right into it.

Yup. They don't know how to fight the right battles.

OK Smart Guy, what battles were the "right battles" that they SHOULD have fought?

That battle to turn America into a religious theocracy run by corporations?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

battle to turn America into a religious theocracy run by corporations?

Already done and won by the Republicans.

You people are just figuring this out now???

Wow, this really shows how bad Education in America has gotten.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
if my wife and i both died, we would prefer our children to be raised in the baptist children's home than with a same-sex couple.

Then what do gays have to do with that? If you follow that train of thought then the government would start banning all sorts of people who the bioligical parents don't approve of.

 

[johnnobts]

not the government banning in this case, this is a private institution choosing not to relinquish custody.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
not the government banning in this case, this is a private institution choosing not to relinquish custody.

No, this thread is about proposed legislative initiatives to ban gays from adopting.

 

[trenchfoot]

the dems should do what the neocons consider standard operating procedures:

1. slap a label onto a policy statement about gay adopting (or whatever) which deceives the gullible public into believing just the opposite of what the true intention of the statement is. then, keep hammering away with the ruse until the gulligans get thoroughly taken in by it. the lazy, clueless fence-sitters will get fooled into thinking the dems are overwhelmingly against gay adoptions and vote accordingly.

2. adopt this scheme out of the neocon playbook - keep telling lies about your opponent as loud and as often as you can, and keep spinning it until tin turns to gold. the neocons know that what appears to be the truth is all that really matters. ask mccain, he'll tell you all about that.

i know it sounds amazingly ridiculous, but the neocons proved time and again that these insidious methods really work.

true to form, the neocons like to call these methods "tough politicking" rather than what it really is.

*edit*- spl

 

[SilentZero]

I'm a Dem and im also against gay adoptions