Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:58:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1444 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Hagen equates being a republican to being gay. Certainly one can change
their party on a whim. Can one change their sexual orientation? His
implication is that being gay and being republican are two, mutually
exclusive qualities. He should stick to the losing game plan of liberals
equating “gay rights” to the black civil rights movement.
|
Well, if he had picked something slightly more equivalent, like “personality
type X” or “brown eyes” or “under 5 feet tall”, it wouldn’t quite get the same
type of media attention he’s looking for. But I think his point still stands--
IE that Hood’s bill proves just as much as Hagan’s that such candidates are or
aren’t “good” parents.
| |
I’m sure the tolerant Mr. Hagen will have no problem with polygamist
families adopting children as well. How about centenarians? What bigotry,
discriminating against the elderly! Disgusting!
|
What gives you the impression that he’d have such an objection? I wouldn’t,
except perhaps on the centenarians, since other, more tangible aspects of
parenting could be proven more difficult for the extremely elderly.
My guess is that you personally have an objection to elderly adopting young
kids, given your phrasing, but on what grounds would you base that? IE, at what
specific age do you think it’s a problem? And why? I’d probably give the elderly
the same scrutiny as I’d give everyone else; but it would probably just result
in the fact that aspects indirectly related to age would be the cause for their
rejection, and not age itself. Similarly (and perhaps a better example), what do
you find objectionable about polygamist adoption? How about Islamic adoption?
(Does Islam still promote polygamy in some sects? Is that acceptable?)
The logical, yet absurd question that follows Hood’s proposed bill is whether
you allow gays to come into any sort of contact with children whatsoever. As a
first step, should gays be allowed to teach? Should they be allowed to have
public office, since that would give the implication to children that someone
who was gay could hold a respected office? Should gays be prohibited from other
positions like child psychiatry? Working at a summer camp?
Assuming that you could even prove that it *was* damaging to children to be
exposed to gay lifestyle, what level of so-called “damaging” to a child’s psyche
is permissable?
| |
If democrats want to get serious and run this country, they’d better clean
house of “humorists” such as Mr. Hagen. He’s a liability.
|
I admit to a certain extent that it’s a waste of time and money to actually
propose such a bill (in case it jokingly were accepted for consideration). But
at the same time, I hadn’t heard about the bill on banning gay adoption until
hearing about this. So, it *was* an effective method to get *my* attention, and
probably others’. He might indeed be a liability (I really couldn’t say), though
I’m not sure I’d conclude that from this action.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
