Bill To Ban Gay Adoptions, Foster Parenting Advances
Last updated Monday, March 12, 2007 9:02 PM CDT in Topics
By Doug Thompson
The Morning News
LITTLE ROCK -- Gays and unmarried couples living together would be banned from adopting children and serving as foster parents in Arkansas under legislation that a Senate committee endorsed Monday.
The Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee advanced Senate Bill 959 despite criticism that the measure would discriminate and reduce the pool of qualified foster parents.
The bill's supporters said the policy has wide public support.
"We expect the Legislature will follow the will of the people. We hope they will," said Jerry Cox, director of the conservative Family Council of Arkansas.
In 2004, 75 percent of Arkansas voters approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The public's views on gay adoption and foster parenting should be obvious from the vote, Cox said in an interview.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union cited a 2005 University of Arkansas poll that showed 65 percent of respondents said they approved of allowing a lesbian or gay man to adopt a child.
Testifying before the committee Monday, former foster child Barbara Miles of Little Rock said the bill puts political considerations ahead of the needs of children and further reduces the chances for a home, paternal love and stability for those children.
"I had 10 different foster parents in three different states before I was adopted at age 10," Miles said in an interview after the meeting. "What got me through that was that I was able to find and establish relationships with a few people who showed me unconditional love and care.
"To deny a child a family because politics eliminates an entire category of people is inappropriate."
None of her foster parents was homosexual, Miles said.
The bill by Sen. Shawn Womack, R-Mountain Home, goes to the Senate, where it could be considered as early as today.
In December 2004, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox struck down a state regulation that banned gays from the state foster care program. Fox ruled that the state Child Welfare Review Board overstepped authority granted by the Legislature in considering morality among criteria for prospective foster parents.
The decision came in a 1999 ACLU lawsuit. The state Supreme Court upheld Fox's ruling last June.
No state law bans private adoptions regardless of sexual orientation. Before Fox's ruling, prospective parents had to meet the same requirements as prospective foster parents -- no gays allowed -- to adopt through the state program. Since Fox's ruling, the state no longer inquires about a prospective parent's sexual orientation.
On Monday, Womack noted the high court's focus on the review board's lack of authority in imposing the gay foster parent ban and said his bill, if it becomes law, would withstand a court challenge.
"The court was clear that the state's responsibility is to protect the best interest of a child," Womack told the committee. "That's what I'm trying to do here."
Rita Sklar, executive director of ACLU Arkansas, noted a portion of the 2006 ruling in which the court stated the "driving force behind adoption of the regulation was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children, but rather based on the board's view of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
Gov. Mike Beebe, who said during his successful gubernatorial campaign last year he would support reinstating the gay foster parent ban, said Monday he was still reviewing Womack's bill.
"Some of this is going into a different area. What we talked about during the campaign was foster care and the fragile nature of those children," Beebe told The Associated Press.
Razorback Central
July 9th, 2009
Reader Comments (85 comment(s))
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
BRAVO wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:29 AM:
" If They Don't Like It, Let Them Move To Another State That Does Allow It. "
girl wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:20 AM:
" Just great. Like are SOOOOO many stable, loving homes for foster kids in this state.
I'd like to see every self-righteous idiot who passed this go out and adopt a kid.
Like that'll ever happen. "
STP wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:27 AM:
" Of course we don't want gays to adopt children. Gay relationships goes against nature. Even lower animal forms know that. How many male rabbits you seen pair up and raise baby rabbits........ "
sad/troubled wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:54 AM:
" this is sending our state back to the stone age. look up bonobo society. they're our closet living relative (even closer than chimps) and they have gay sex, lesbian sex, oral sex and orgies. "
following this logic... wrote on Mar 13, 2007 9:11 AM:
"
[sarcasm on]
following this logic, maybe they could also ban gay and lesbian teenager foster children from being placed with any parents. after all, we wouldn't want to confuse any nice upstanding heterosexual couples who are obviously already in a delicate state since they are having to turn to adoption.
[sarcasm off]
seriously, the will of the people was to "protect marriage" symbolically by banning gay marriage (without doing anything real like banning divorce, or making personal commitments to stay married). the will of the people is usually not "sure, I'll do my extra part and adopt a child" or "please, raise my taxes to pay for orphanages". will of the lazy, that's it... "
T wrote on Mar 13, 2007 10:48 AM:
" The anti-hetero rantings of journalists don't qualify as scientific studies. But journalists know that public school students can't find original research so they lie, claiming that studies show no risks to homosexual parenting. Fact is, the science and Christian ethics line up here, just as they always do - public anti-education notwithstanding. "
To girl wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM:
" I have adopted a child, and I support the legislation. Not because I hate anyone, but because I feel that there is a moral issue that needs to be upheld. I do think that gay and lesbian behavior is immoral, as is living together without any accountability to a simple written document on record and the responsibility that a stable marriage relationship entails. These kids have seen enough depravity and broken relationships in their short tenure. Why would we choose to place them in the middle of unstable and immoral relationships? A better question is 'Why can't we spend some of our time and resources streamlining the process of adoption through DHS so that those who could and would adopt, and permanently move these kids to loving families (who are waiting for the opportunity) can do so'. Look into it sometime. The process is stacked against adoption, and favors long term foster care. That is why this legislation is so hard to swallow for state agencies, because it reduces the number of foster positions available, and they are desperate for those spaces. Reducing the number of Foster Children by adoption to waiting homes seems to me to be a logical solution, but that solution is not well supported by the state. "
To girl wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:03 AM:
" I understand your sentiment; that everyone should consider what they are doing for those kids before they speak out on a politically charged issue, but I don't think it is advisable to allow our desperation for foster homes in the state push us into placing kids in a bad situation. Instead I wish the legislature would look into the far more complicated and less “headline grabbing” issue of making it easier to find these kids homes. "
Well... wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:09 AM:
" If we're going to talk about instability, we probably shouldn't allow people who have been divorced previously to adopt either. A second marriage is less likely to last than a first and besides, there are those who would consider remarriage after divorce to be against their religious beliefs. We'll throw divorced people on the "unfit to adopt" pile right next to the unstable and immoral ones. "
Alicia wrote on Mar 13, 2007 12:18 PM:
" The question whould not be whether or not gay or lesbian families 'should' be allowed to adopt, but whether or not they are. There is no legal premise for 'banning' any class or race or type of person from adopting a child, as long as they are able to sufficiently care for and provide for that child. This is a case of trying to determine more than who is eligible to care for a child--an attempt to lump a group of people under a category or a mark, declaring them less than people. It should be no surprise that this has happened in Arkansas many times before to many groups of people. What goes around comes around. Some day it will be a ban against allowing white, heterosexual, conservative bigots to raise their children. 'Arkansas Legislator seeks to pass bill forcing heterosexuals to stop using money from gay and lesbian sub-citizens to raise their children because they can't handle the responsibility.' I say, let them grow up without anywhere to turn. Maybe in five years when there are thousands upon thousands of uncared for children, someone will force people to start using birth control. "
To the incinerators! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:08 PM:
" Your right! Moral relativism is the answer! There is no, (nor should there be) any legal or moral standard. To the incinerators! This is what I call progress. "
Bill wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:38 PM:
" There are dozens of studies that show gay parents are just as capable of raising kids as any other. The bill is discrimination, plain and simple. "
Ridiculous!!! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:40 PM:
" I'm sure the abused foster children from Bella Vista would gladly accept being adopted by a gay person!!! "
What? wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:53 PM:
" Without some moral imposition (regardless of it’s origin), what is the society supposed to be responsible to? Less accountability (lack of any standard) rarely improves responsibility. The standard must be in place in order to be responsible to it, not the ohter way around. "
Re what? wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:04 PM:
" Society is responsible to society, not to some ill-confound god. If the christian god is so beautiful and loving, then lucy you have some splainin to do. Such moral standards as what you speak of were present in many failed societies. Morality is man's excuse for prejudice. The idea that if 'god' or some other magical figure says something that it is set in stone for eternity is insane, and it can also be attributed as the cause for over-population, under-responsibility, and general foolishness. After all, hit the kids, you'll be forgiven. You seem to be from Ted Haggard's branch. Do you know him? Was that who it was? Speak out against that which you inwardly fight against most--the traditional christian paradigm. You are suggesting a hierarchy of morality, or morals--of people. Very Hitler-esque of you. German heritage maybe? This is not a moral issue. The legal system uses law, logic, reason, and the necessary lack of bias to make decisions. Who your god is and what he's done for you is not an issue. Whether or not you think that there should be a gay club on the same street as the ten or eleven 'gentleman's clubs' is not the issue. Science, reason, and the law are all on the side of allowing gay and lesbian citizens to have the right to adopt.
"
Makenzi wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:56 PM:
" Who are we to cast stones? Are we without sin so we can condem others? Do I agree with Homosexuality? No. But it is not my place to judge others. And just because someone is gay/lesbian DOES NOT make them child molestors. I am hetrosexual and have 3 children. If I had to choose someone to care for my children I would look and find someone to love them and show them that you can love people regardless of their race, gender or their preferences to a partner. Most of the post that are here are only showing hate and unforgivness. Would you prefer children are in a loving home or in a group home? I know a wonderful couple that adopted a little boy from South America and are in process of adoptin another child. They are lesbian parents and wonderful parents. The children are loved, fed, clothed and live in a beautiful home and go to nice schools. So is that abusing the children? Before you cast your stones, look first at yourself. If you are perfect as God is perfect.
"
What? wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:09 PM:
" 'Society is responsible to society' How is this not moral relativism. That I am, in my own infinite wisdom, the final arbiter of right and wrong, wisdom and foolishness, seems quite presumptuous. You're the one that keeps dragging god into this. You're the one who smears anyone that has a position on moral imperitives. How much reason does it take to paint all who believe in a higher power with that "hate speech". Or am I being a hitler-esqe imbecile? "
Touched by a hetero wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:21 PM:
" While Makenzi's argument is certainly the most Oprah style argument we've seen, it is still not based on logic, reason, or law. Modern arguments need not be based on emotion or eros. There is a necessity for logic and reason in the law and in society. Without it, we have what we have here--a bunch of emotional people running around hugging some and snubbing others and then crying because those who they snubbed now dislike them. Grow up. Make an argument based on something besides 'chicken soup for the stupid' and prove your argument on an adult level without citing scripturres or feelings or cutesy examples. "
Wow wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:44 PM:
" That's one bitter atheist! By the way, insults and belittling are the steadfast tools of the well reasoned. Good job! "
Bitter? wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:16 PM:
" Not bitter at all. I love my life, but god has no place in it, and forcing 'god' into legislation, which is the only way this bill passes, has no place in my life either. I am not a pacifist, so I have no problem being blunt. Keep your 'praise god's in your churches where they belong, and leave the law to logic--the way it is meant to be.
The simple truth is that no one can make an argument against gay anything without turning to either religion or feelings. Neither have any value in the law. Jesus is dead, and emotion--in the respect that you are using it is a guise for your real motives, which are hate and oppression. "
Moral Relativism or Absolutism wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:19 PM:
" About those posts about moral relativism: Which is better? The idea that maybe morals aren't black and white all the time--that perhaps life isn't based on the bible, which appeared some time after man already existed, or the idea that only heterosexuals deserve to rear children, even if one of the parents was the biological parent? "
Censorship wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:22 PM:
" And As usual, the locals have decided to censor any view point that is not in accord with their own, no doubt on the tab of the southern baptist convention and local advertisers. Bravo "
sad/troubled wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:28 PM:
" Assuming you haven't been getting your fair share of oral sex lately? Or maybe you have? Or maybe you caught something? "
Rabbits wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:36 PM:
" Of course we don't want gays to adopt children. Gay relationships goes against nature. Even lower animal forms know that. How many male rabbits you seen pair up and raise baby rabbits
I reiterate to STP that if heterosexuals weren't out there reproducing like rabbits and then not taking care of their own children, but relying on others to care for them, we would have no need for adoption. Use some birth control.
If this is a moral argument, then look at the statistics for child abuse, which show most abuse occurs at the hands of heterosexual family members or authority figures. Look at the news--the mothers dumping kids on the side of the street, in garbage cans, etc. Morally speaking, there are a lot of heteros who never should've been allowed to have kids. If they can't be responsible for what they bring into this world, they should be ordered to have operations to prevent further reproduction.
Grow up and buy a box of condoms or go to the health department. They will give you some. "
Disbelief wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:45 PM:
" How can the some of you people sleep at night? If we are going to ban homosexuals from being foster parents then we need to add a few things to the list. (1)If you have been divorced (2)If you are black (3)If you are NOT a Baptist(4)If you are Hispanic(5)If you have any beliefs that are different from the right-wing, conservative gang. Shame on you for not thinking about the welfare of the thousands of children that need a loving home. You are thinking only of your narrow minded beliefs. "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:56 PM:
" To Touched: I am not saying you have to beleive in God. The point I was trying to make without offending anyone was, Would you rather children be in a loving, caring home regardless of the sex of the "Parent" or in a group home or foster home where it has been shown that abuse does occur (sometimes not always)? I am against anyone having children that would harm them. Being gay/lesbian does not make someone a bad parent. We should not believe that we are so much better than someone because of our beliefs. Whether I agree with you or not until you can be proven unfit (Anyone should have complete background, parenting classes etc.. before they can adopt) why should we condem you just because you believe different than me. I would hope that we all teach our children to grow and accept people regardless if they are different than you and I. "
For Makenzi wrote on Mar 13, 2007 5:13 PM:
" Makenzi...Of course. My point is that it is not helping things to use an emotional argument, because emotions are not reliable or stable. By nature they are in opposition to what is logical (think of falling in love). Yes we believe differently, but right now it would be a stretch to say that there is not one belief system that is impacting our society more than any other (and not always for the better).
Foster parents should be chosen on merit and a systematic process, not religious beliefs or sexual orientation or race or disability or any other characteristic. The issue is presenting a reason that is not religious or based on discrimination for denying gay/lesbian families the right to adopt. No one has been able to do that. It requires looking at things without bias--without emotion, logically. "
Get Over It wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:59 PM:
" This isn't just a "homosexual" issue. The bill also includes heterosexual men and heterosexual women but you don't hear them whining about discrimination. The law is to protect the child from being in an unfavorable enviroment no matter who heads the household. Get Over It - Move On. "
get over it wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:32 AM:
" This is a human issue. Heterosexual men won't complain. There is a large mass of them that don't want to take care of their own children, let alone adopt someone else's. The majority of my friends are heterosexual, and their discussion tends to loom around how they can avoid pregnancy, how they are frustrated and unhappy because of their responsibilities, how they wish they'd waited to have kids, or how they are no longer able to have as much sex. Perhaps why people like yourselves hate gay individuals so much--we are frequently solicited by your 'heterosexual' men for felatio or other refinements when you stop providing. Myself, I don't partake. We might examine the prominents from companies like Tyson and Wal-Mart who solicit sex online--there are many. Heterosexuals make their own pain in life, and in an S&M mentality, they force it upon us because we're convenient and under-represented. I know of many heterosexual women--one I work with--who have children as single parents quite on purpose now. If they are heterosexual, there is little need for adoption. This is a gay issue because of the language and defense or the issue, as well as the intent behind it. It would be the equivalent of someone ripping out your uterus in jack the ripper fashion "
FINALLY wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:03 AM:
" I'm glad to see that the Senate passed the bill on Tuesday banning cohabiting
heterosexual couples from becoming foster parents. At least now they're getting a law on the books to finally prevent this and protect the children's well being. "
To Get Over It wrote on Mar 14, 2007 8:22 AM:
" Say whatever you like, but it has been widely reported that this legislative step would be attempted as a response to the Court's ruling that prospective foster parents cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. This IS a homosexual issue. An article in the Northwest Arkansas Times went as far as to report that if a child is related by blood, the unmarried cohabiting heterosexual would be considered for adoption, whereas a homosexual relative would not. "
Who are you to JUDGE wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:24 AM:
" If this is my tax dollars at work, I want MY MONEY BACK. I do not think GOD likes the fact that the human race is taking his place. I thought GOD was the only one who could judge and sentence. GOD gave all of us the emotion to LOVE , who gives anyone the right to say "You can't love and care for a child because you are single or gay, only straight people can love and care for a child" (I believe the human race says this). If humans think this is moral issue than let God be the Judge and Jury, and let the human race
find the qualified loving homes for these children who desperately need love and security (singles and gays included).
COME ON PEOPLE WORK TOGETHER!!!!!!! "
HATRED!! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:43 AM:
" HATRED IS THE DEVILS WORK, HATRED IS THE DEVILS WORK. SOUNDS LIKE HE PAYS YOU VERY WELL.. "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:55 AM:
" Like we said if you dont like it than move to another state where they will allow it, maybe you sould read up on the Bible, homosexuality offends God and if you think that this is hatred or going back to the stone age than so be it, because not even God approves of it and it says so on the Bible, just because some humans think is right doesnt meen God does. Its not the childrens fault that this homosexuals are commiting fault against God so they should be raised with the idea that is OK to be one...shame on all gays and those who support them...P.S. election time is right around the corner so remember not to vote for Hillary since we all know that if she is president she will most likely make gay marrige legal and i dont know about you but i sure dont want my children to think been Gay is ok just because a couple of immoral people say so. "
To all wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:01 AM:
" About ten years ago I read an article where they intreviewed pedophiles. The study show some like this. 1 out of 1,000,000 Heterosexual men is a pedophile, and 1 out of 500 Homosexual men are pedophiles. This is why gays should not be allowed to adopt. "
Love For A Child wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:19 AM:
" It's unfortunate that those who love and can furnish a loving home to a child is being left out. Sexual orientation is a moral issues yes, but so is putting a child at risk when planced one a heterosexual household that uses a child for their own sexual perversion. There are so many people, straight and gay, who can't have children and want one and can offer everything a child needs in a loving home. "
A Definition wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:45 AM:
" Pedophilia and pederasty
When used in a general sense, these words refer to adult sexual encounters with children. Pedophilia as a noun refers to a diagnosis of one of many paraphilias which, unlike homosexuality, are pathological diagnoses of mental disorders characterized by abnormalities of intention: varying degrees of selfish disregard for the well being (possible destructive effects) on the partner instead of respect and mutually acceptable cooperation for mutual pleasure. A pedophile is someone whose dominant sexual orientation is for children. When used as an adjective, "pedophile behavior" may not refer to a pathological pedophile but to adult-child sexual abuse by a heterosexual or a homosexual who does not meet the diagnostic criteria of fixated pedophilia. It follows that conflation and confusion of pedophilia or any undesignated same-sex child molesstation with homosexuality, whether intentional or not, unjustly stigmatizes homosexuals. (Over 95% of all child molessters self-identify themselves as heterosexual). A pedophile is distinguished from a teleiophile (heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual) whose dominant or exclusive attraction is for adults (but some of whom occasionally molesst children). (Paraphrased from Levine in Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, Kaplan and Sadock, eds., 7th Edition, 2000).
"
Older citation wrote on Mar 14, 2007 10:52 AM:
" The Child Molesstation Research and Prevention Institute found in a study begun in 1994 and completed in 2001 that about a fourth of the subjects scattered across 41 states had molessted one or several children. The study focused on these 4,007 results and found that pedophilia doesn't seem to occur in disproportionate frequency to the education level, marriage status, or religious observance of Americans and appears among all top-level racial classifications. In other words, it does not seem to be the case that any one socio-economic group displays a disproportionately high frequency of pedophilia. Some 90 percent of pedophiles target children they already knew, and 68 percent of them molesst children in their families. The disease has an early onset, many of its victims molesting much younger children when they themselves are fairly young. Most molesst before they've turned 20, and 40 percent strike before turning 15. Boys who have been molessted have a greater tendency to become molessters. The study found also that people who were molessted more than 50 times themselves have triple the number of victims than pedophiles who were never molessted. Contrary to popular fundamentalist belief, more than 70 percent of the males who molesst children report themselves as heterosexual, and most are or have been married. More than 60 percent of the pedophiles studied also exhibit other sexual disorders, such as voyeurism.
"
Ideas Strike back wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:13 AM:
" Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.
"
La la ideas--they are dangerous wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:15 AM:
" For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
"
Facts wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:28 AM:
" In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259). "
What's next? wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:29 AM:
" So my cousin, who is lesbian, can teach your children, but now she can't get married or adopt and raise her own? Doesn't make any sense.
What's next? concentration camps? "
What's next wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:40 AM:
" There more than enough in this region of the country that would like that. Not unlike the Nazi mentality, they wish to eliminate anyone who opposes their point of view, and since there is no scientific reason for doing this, they use their prejudice and their majority stance in politics, media, and even law to destroy that which they wish not to see. "
the unwanted wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:49 AM:
" Bravo, how many children are you planning to adopt or foster? Because I just don't see every heterosextual in the u.s. wanting the responsibilties of raising a child and/or siblings so my question is. What do we do with thousands and thousands of unwanted kids? "
adoption hmmm! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 11:58 AM:
" Who would want to adopt U.S. kid in the first place, because the bio. parents can come in at any time and steel them away and guess what the LAW ALLOWS it this is a FACT.
Don't worry if you are (gay, straight,single what ever) you can adopt from another country it may cost more but it would be worth it.
"
money talks wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:08 PM:
" Yeah! Let the state and tax dollars pay for the raising of the kids. As far as foster parents most of them just want the benefits, remember they get paid several hundred dollars per head as a foster parent. why do you think they have so many in one household. "
re the unwanted wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:09 PM:
" 'I just don't see every heterosexual in the u.s. wanting the responsibilities....' Exactly--even the ones who keep custody of them often times. "
new view wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:18 PM:
" How many unwanted kids in the system are homosexual? Until the system knows for sure how many there are,it should be banned that a heterosexual couple should not ever be allowed to foster or adopt because they are not fit to be a good and loving parents. "
New View wrote on Mar 14, 2007 12:34 PM:
" I agree, and they would probably tend to treat a child who later indentified as gay as an abomination or disappointment. Better they have a dog or a cat or a 'rabbit' "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 2:21 PM:
" Childre are better off in foster homes than be raised by immoral humans...kids need to know that God is not for gay marriage or relationship of any homosexual type, just because some tend to say otherwise doesnt meen is ok, homosexuality is WRONG it offends God even animals know that. Gay people should never be able to raise children, we dont want a future of immoral humans. "
Sarcasm wrote on Mar 14, 2007 2:22 PM:
" *sarcastic* if you aren't going to allow them to adopt...then don't allow their tax dollars to help the children either...i mean...it would be their money that they are using to raise those children...very different from the money they'd be using to raise the children that they adopted... "
Who are you to JUDGE wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:11 PM:
" BRAVO, You never answered the question ."How many children are you going to adopt or foster. And don't forget BRAVO you will be judged yourself and what are you going to say to GOD ALL MIGHTY. "I just tried your shoes on". "
More Morality wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:23 PM:
" If this is a godliness, moralistic argument, explain to me the number of married men that make attempts to use gay men to fulfill their 'needs' in this region. They vary in age and occupation--from Tyson to Hospitals and Wal-Mart Execs to corporate gurus. Maybe we need to make some things public--some Ted Haggard style waves. The heterosexual community is more self-righteous--that is the only difference between the two. Get your head out of your bible and look at reality. If you think you're some clean, perfect person, you need medication. "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:51 PM:
" Well i see alot of you got offended by the truth, it doesn't kill you but it sure hurst. First of all i never said i hate homosexuals, so i dont know where you got that from, second, even so i still think, no wait, i know that children should not be raised by gays. If homosexuals are going to be immoral than let them im no one to judge you are right, but dont bring in innocent children into your WRONG ways of believes. For the person who wrote that their is no GOD than i guess you came from the monkey and if so you pray to King Kong. The truth of the matter is that if you want to be gay than is your decision but dont you dare try and convince children that is ok, its Immoral and thats fianl... "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 14, 2007 4:55 PM:
" I somewhat agree with Bravo, except I would prefer children be in loving homes regardless of the Adult Sexual preferences. As said God is against divorce, remarriage, drugs, drinking ect... So If you have ever been divorced, remarried due to death , drink on occasion, ever in your life did drugs should you be banned from fostering or adopting? I am a christian and I do not agree with the alternative lifestyle but it is not my place to judge as I have sin also. So before spewing hate, learn to love. "
Egomet wrote on Mar 14, 2007 6:13 PM:
" The heuristic explanation for this lie: Heterosexuals are abusing their own children, as they have been since the beginning of time. Heterosexuals are overcome with guilt and need someone to pin their destructive behavior on. Heterosexuals typically try to portray themselves as almost nonsexual beings, which is highly unrealistic given the infidelity problems in their relationships, the fact that they are reproducing, and the fact that they are animals--the same species as other humans who have sexual desires and needs. Children are convenient for heterosexuals. Most homosexuals don't struggle to be around children and many have no interest in having or being around children. This is a means for heterosexuals to pin the fact that they molesst and as we have seen sometimes even kill their own children, ruining their psyches and damaging them for life on someone else. They do this regardless of their religious sect or affiliation. They cannot control themselves. We should pity them. "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 14, 2007 6:13 PM:
" What was i thinking talking to you people about God if you are homosexual than is irrelavant that i do since you sin against him anyway and know you want us normal humans to have pity on you and let children be raised by homosexuals, Wrong that i asure will never happend, be gay all you want im not mad at you but dont bring in innocent children into your immoral ways...as for children i do want them to be in loving homes but not in gay ones...i know you poeple dont believe in God but i will still pray for you. "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:42 PM:
" Wity? Please people dictionary.com Use it. Learn from it. Read it on your days off from the bible. I do know that I'm cute though, but sorry, I'm taken. "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:47 PM:
" How old are you? 10 I was not trying to bash anyone. You are truly are very sad and lonely person. "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:52 PM:
" Like I said, I'm not lonely. My man is sitting right next to me while we watch tv and surf the net and such together. Not really sad either--spent more time today laughing and smiling than anything else. I am just old enough. An adult, but I guess I'm not old enough to be obsessed with jesus and the end of my life. Life is temporal. Pray for all your years, but it will still end. "
Makenzi wrote on Mar 14, 2007 7:57 PM:
" To have so much hate is very sad. I will miss chatting with you. Bye Bye! "
THE UNWANTED wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:08 PM:
" BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. "HOW MANY UNWANTED CHILDERN DO YOU PLAN TO ADOPT OR FOSTER". I HAVE ASKED YOU 3 TIMES AND YOU NEVER ANSWER, SOUNDS LIKE THE ANSWER IS ZERO. SO IF YOU DON'T AND OTHERS LIKE YOU DON'T. WHAT DO WE DO TO REMEDY THE SITUTATION? HOW DO WE GET THESE UNWANTED KIDS SECURE AND LOVING HOMES? DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS? "
Tired of this... wrote on Mar 14, 2007 9:25 PM:
" The fact is we have children in foster care who need caring homes. We have people willing to provide those homes. There is no statistical correlation between homosexuality and abuse, pedophilia, or children being "turned gay." In fact, you will find that leading psychologists and children's advocates have upheld the view that there is no negative impact on children of gay families. Until there is concrete evidence proving otherwise, in my humble opinion, it shouldn't matter if you are straight, gay, or otherwise as to whether you can foster or adopt. Until there are no children left in our foster care system because they are all in supportive and caring homes, this should not be an issue.
I just want to note that I don't particularly care what people's opnions are. Everyone has a right to one. But making these important decisions should be a well thought out and reasoned decision, not a matter of hatefulness and name-calling. Grow up. Educate yourself. Then form your opinion and express it in a polite and adult fashion. "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 10:51 AM:
" HAHAHA, you make me laugh, "Lets ban Bravo" are you saying that just because i believe the way i do, which is the moral and right way, i should be ban? And you on the other hand who is wrong in the head and on top of it want to raise innocent children in your immoral ways think should be look at perfectly normal? You people have issues. No im not perfect and i do sin, but to be Gay and want to raise children that i will never agree with, be gay all you want but you should never have the privilege to have and raise kids and that is that is the consequence you pay for your immoral way of living, and call it what you want. Hate, that is not what i feel, iam looking out for the morals of those poor children. "
Nice wrote on Mar 15, 2007 11:45 AM:
" It must be nice to feel so sure of yourself that you feel qualified to be the moral authority for the rest of us. What a burden to carry! Perhaps you could post a hierarchy of sin so that we know which ones disqualify a person from raising children and which ones are a little bad, but not bad enough to prevent effective parenting? Thanks. "
BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 1:41 PM:
" HAHAHAHA I have to confess that the only reason I'm posting these moralistic posts is because I had several homosexual experiences earlier in life, and I haven't been able to find anyone who wanted me since. My morals are a way of hiding the fact that when I'm in church I'm looking at the people next to me and thinking 'orggy.' My pastor is my counselor in a number of ways now though, so I'm not so lonely anymore. When he's not around, the family dog does just find...really is my best friend. "
TO FAKE BRAVO!!! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 1:51 PM:
" If you are trying to post a comment and say that its me doing it, the real BRAVO!!! than what a shame, you have nothing to say and so you try and fake that you are me, a Dog? yeah you problely do that dont you, it just goes to show you how right iam, children are the best gift that God can give to us moral and normal humans and you homosexuals should never have the privelege to have or raise one in your immoral ways, iam glad the bill to ban gay adoption is going so well. "
ALL HAIL TO BRAVO wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:01 PM:
" All hail to Bravo the purest human alive. He knows all and is the judge of others. I am homosexual and my kids are just fine, thank you. You need not worry about me, my children or my lifestyle. You are NOT right and you can type all day but you still won't be the moral authority of society. I have a question for you--If one of your children was homosexual would you turn you back on him/her or would you give them up and let me be their foster parent? "
Let's Ban Bravo!! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:13 PM:
" Hmmmmm....looks like they erased my first post about banning Bravo from the site but they leave all of Bravo's rantings alone. I wonder if Bravo has connections at the newspaper? "
Give me wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:35 PM:
" I am a straight male who grew up in foster care and some of the heterosexual homes where I ended up were horrible. I would have traded those places for a "Homo house" any day of the week. If you haven't been in foster care you have no right to ban certain individuals because you don't agree with their lifestyle. "
Nice wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:51 PM:
" I'm still waiting for the big sin/little sin list from Bravo. Perhaps he/she didn't understand my use of the word "hierarchy"? "
2 Nice wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:58 PM:
" That must be it, Bravo's trying to find the word in the dictionary or maybe Bravo is at DHS signing up to be a foster parent. "
To All Hail wrote on Mar 15, 2007 3:20 PM:
" I agree with you. 4 of my dearest friends are Moms. They are better parents than I could ever hope to be. No disrespect intended, but gay men have more class than some of these post are showing. Please show that you are better than the haters. And I am a straight woman so Bravo can hate me to if "she" so desires. "
To all wrote on Mar 16, 2007 8:24 AM:
" A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.
Article can be found at:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431 "
Jerry Hawkins wrote on Mar 16, 2007 12:26 PM:
" This Guy in Bella Vista that was single and had problems with abuse et al. Was he an unwed coupl or Gay? No I know good people from all walks of life. The homophobes and single couple haters are trying to project their will upon a society that claims to the world through military force, death and destruction to be free. Keep your children so filthy perverted married people can use and abuse these innocent pawns to get their monies and morality. Just because you conquer does not mean you can control. "
Moore wrote on Mar 18, 2007 11:33 PM:
" Good and Bad homes are found within any specific race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, financial status. I am a straight mother and before I started excluding who I would want to care for my children, there would be alot of factors to consider. No, I may not agree with homosexuality, however I know they can provide a loving, stable, nurturing foundation for a child. The most important fact is societies children need a home- more research needs to be done on any family before a child is placed. Just excluding some is not the aswer. "
Jerry Hawkins wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:41 AM:
" Unconditional love comes from the heart, soul and mind. It does not come from a placement of a reproductive organ or a position in society.
Christians love a man that was never married yet loved.Stop the hate and do like Christ said to love one another and treat them as you would want to be treated. "
To all wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:24 AM:
" I am a christian, and I follow GODs laws. GOD himself says in the Bible that homosexuals will burn in HELL. If your going to call yourself a Christian, you need to follow all of GODs rules, not just the ones you want to follow. "
To "to all" wrote on Mar 19, 2007 4:41 PM:
" You are correct. You should also follow them. I believe that the bible also says Judge Not as you to shall be judged. Could be a couple of words off but you get the idea. So I to am a christian and I sin just like everyone else and God will judge us all in the end. Try to think about the children and not just how we feel about others. Learn to love more. It will make the world a better place. "
You are correct wrote on Mar 20, 2007 7:57 AM:
" I am not Judging, just following what God says. I forget who said it but the qoute is "the only thing needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing". Homosexuliaty is one of the 3 great evils destroying this country. The other 2 being abortion and illegal immigration. "
Jerry Hawkins wrote on Mar 20, 2007 10:00 PM:
" God also says it ok to have more than one wife. Have slaves. A woman should be subserviant.We should not have to work on the Sabbath.
What happened to soth, betting or gambling, being rich and adultery being a 7 deadly sin thang?
Oh and by the way. If God and his friends jump off a bridge does that mean you will too? "
Not already registered?
J wrote on Mar 12, 2007 11:52 PM: