Subject:
|
Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:38:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1357 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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.
|
Ahh, it’s all about media attention. I think that you are onto something, Dave!
(not to be confused with Dave!!)
| |
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.
|
Barring homosexuals is extreme. But I do contend that there is a definite
hierarchy when selecting prospective parents. 1M1F is superior to 2M0F or 0M2F,
or any other combo you can think of.
| |
| |
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.
|
What is totally being missed here is what is best for the children, not the
parents.
| |
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?
|
Common sense.
| |
IE, at
what specific age do you think it’s a problem?
|
It completely depends upon the couple. Some couples who are in their early
twenties are less suitable than couples in their forties. The process is
totally fluid, depending upon a myriad of factors-- number of children available
at any given time, their ages, their race, number of parents wanting to adopt at
any given time, their ages, their race, etc, etc. And yeah, I said “race”. I
believe that given 2 similar couples, one being black and one being white, the
black one should have an advantage over the white one in adopting any particular
black baby.
| |
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.
|
Many, many factors require consideration. A couple in their 50s may seem
suitable enough, until a couple in their 30s enters the picture. Fluid.
| |
Similarly (and perhaps a
better example), what do you find objectionable about polygamist adoption?
|
Aside from the fact that the practice is illegal?
| |
How about Islamic adoption? (Does Islam still promote polygamy in some sects?
Is that acceptable?)
|
Still practiced? Probably. Acceptable. No.
| |
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?
|
As I said, I have no particular issue with homosexuality, and find the
hypotheticals above disturbing.
| |
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.
|
Too cute by (a) half (wit).
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
