Texas Leg. to gay - NO KIDS FOR YOU!

[USIncognito]

(please forgive the Seinfeld Soup Nazi pithyness, this is a serious topic)

The Texas house in a larger bill concerning an overhall of Child Protective Services passed it with a last minute amendment forbidding allowing gay couples from being foster parents. The amendment even has provisions for the questioning of potential foster parents about their sexual orientation, and taking away foster children if it's later found out the gay foster parent misrepresented themselves as straight.

Gay issues aren't big on my agenda, but this action outrages me. From a purely practical point, the more foster households there are in Texas the better. Eliminating any portion of them, except for those with sex offenders, drug addics, etc. can only hurt the children of Texas who are determined to need foster care. From a pragmatic point, as was saliently pointed out by Howard Stern (of all people), gay couples would, knowing the public eye was on them, would be extra careful and caring while being foster parents.

But the one thing that really outraged me about this amendment is that the apparent basis for adding it by the representative who did so, was an effort to keep children from being - and I parodically paraphrase - "to prevent them from recruiting children into the homosexual lifestyle choice." I have to wonder if people like said representative get their information from the American Psychological Association or from James Dobson when I read things like that...

[LillSnopp]

Actually it was George H W Bush (Bush senior) who said that, not George W Bush. You're mixing up two different presidents.

Really? Oh, i do apologize, i dont really see any difference between them. I stand corrected.

[DanMRaymond]

Hahahaha I didn't know George Bush ever said that... thats incredibly funny! And by no means do I think that George W. Bush wasn't lying; I know he was. But thats not the point =)

[AlAyeti]

I never use the Bible as support for my position that homosexuality is not rational behavior. I use science: Anatomy, Biology, Physiology and Zoology and of course, if you want to see the ultimate anti-homosexual science, please try to understand Darwinian evolution.

Aberration in nature is pitilessly judged. Procreation is the sole driving force of evolution. <-- That's a period.

I hold similar beliefs to that of the great philosopher John Locke. Empiricism plain and simple for me. Especially on "atheists." Deism is perfectly acceptable but "non-originator" thought, to me is anti-intellectual.

I believe that same-sex marriage proliferates the death and horror that our young people are experiencing in ever increasing numbers daily, by amplifying a sexual licentiousness that's absolutely "out of control." Contemplate the word "control." Exactly what Dan promotes "no control." Maybe the bright lights of Massachusetts and New York denies the ability to be able to hear the cry of it all in abortoin mills and AIDS clinics. Soon two angels will be visting Boston to see for themselves. Like in Abraham's question on Sodom city I wonder if they will find even five? Not now that the Agenda has been amplified so openly to include evything. There is no way that that story is myth, so I'm not thinking Biblical. Now it's on the five o'clock news every day. Now "Questioning youth" is sought under the GLBT and "I" (intersexual? what the h--l is that?) "umbrella." How convenient. That is every single human being since Adam and Eve, oops, or that stopped swinging in trees. . . whatever. Well, "Biblically," as the myth goes . . . the first "questioning" individual was Satan. If I use the Bible as myth I'm OK. Observation is a powerful empirical medicine.

Now, at best, the Constitution IS ONLY a document written by men. At worst it is stupid. Didn't these idiots think about child pornography, NAMBLA or the ACLU? If you use the same skepticism that denegrates everything Biblical, you have the same premise for distrusting the constitution written by a bunch of murderous seditious traitors. Just men and their opinions. Did these men ever teach what we are told or were they "interpreted" in "translations" to have said the things they did? How do I know they even existed. There are only paintings and no real evidence. How do we know whose bones are where?

The constitution does not allow for anything to be defined or redefined any way some individual wants as a right. That's chaos. Not a manageable society. My analogy of pork and Muslim's and Jews was used to shy away from the yuck factor.

But Dan, if you would pass a law in the great states of NY and Mass, that Christians are still alowed to be American citizens free from arrest, for finding homosexuality against the teachings of the Bible and anatomy - like all of the other sins it is listed with - and of anatomy, then sign me up for your progressive- liberal agenda.

But we both have seen how truly open-minded and diverse "Progressives" are when they are opposed. Bang! ACLU lawsuit in a blink of an eye. Abusive, insulting, labeling. Bang! That's not being defensive, that's understanding the language being used. "Right" wing fanatic? I prefer "Correct view" zealot.

The pork analogy was perfectly accurate to this utterly absurd position of forcing same-sex marriage on a society and cultures that clearly do not want it.

First prevent people who do not agree that a sex act can define a person as a minority from being sued for speaking or teaching that view on the street or in the pulpit. And that any degrading or derogatory or hateful speech directed at those that oppose a sex act as cultural qualifying, cannot be labeled as hate speech. It is factual, not emotionalism, heterosexism (uh, yeah) or bigoted.

I have no problem with what people want to believe as long as they don't force it on me. Especially in the voting booth and absolutely not by judges making laws. Sound familiar?

[DanMRaymond]

I never use the Bible as support for my position that homosexuality is not rational behavior. I use science: Anatomy, Biology, Physiology and Zoology and of course, if you want to see the ultimate anti-homosexual science, please try to understand Darwinian evolution.

How can you use that as an argument when homosexuality has and always will be a part of human nature and animal nature?

I believe that same-sex marriage proliferates the death and horror that our young people are experiencing in ever increasing numbers daily, by amplifying a sexual licentiousness that's absolutely "out of control." Contemplate the word "control." Exactly what Dan promotes "no control."

Explain using your "scientific evidence" how same-sex marriage proliferates death and horror. What does homosexuality have to do with death and horror?

The constitution does not allow for anything to be defined or redefined any way some individual wants as a right. That's chaos. Not a manageable society. My analogy of pork and Muslim's and Jews was used to shy away from the yuck factor.

Actually the constitution does allow for things to be defined and redefined all the time. Must I bring up the civil rights movement again?

But Dan, if you would pass a law in the great states of NY and Mass, that Christians are still alowed to be American citizens free from arrest, for finding homosexuality against the teachings of the Bible and anatomy - like all of the other sins it is listed with - and of anatomy, then sign me up for your progressive- liberal agenda.

When did we ever say that Christians weren't allowed to find homosexuality against the teachings of the bible? I also agree that homosexuality is against the teachings of the bible. Anybody who has ever read the bible knows that.

The pork analogy was perfectly accurate to this utterly absurd position of forcing same-sex marriage on a society and cultures that clearly do not want it.

It's not forcing.

First prevent people who do not agree that a sex act can define a person as a minority from being sued for speaking or teaching that view on the street or in the pulpit. And that any degrading or derogatory or hateful speech directed at those that oppose a sex act as cultural qualifying, cannot be labeled as hate speech. It is factual, not emotionalism, heterosexism (uh, yeah) or bigoted.

You just said that a hateful speech shouldn't be labeled as a hate speech. Why shouldn't it be labeled as a hate speech? Thats what it is. How can you justify hatred and say you follow the teachings of the Bible at the same time?

I have no problem with what people want to believe as long as they don't force it on me. Especially in the voting booth and absolutely not by judges making laws. Sound familiar?

They aren't forcing it upon you. It has nothing to do with you. They aren't forcing you to do anything. It won't effect your life.

[AlAyeti]

I have explained my position. If you can't understand aberration is self-explanatory (especially in nature) it is not my fault but that of your Liberal Professor in Massachusetts. Darwinian Evolution to your same-sex attraction animals, is far greater a threat to homosexuality than the Bible. And please, figure that out for yourself. The yuck-factor gets overwhelming at times. Let alone having to explain common sense.

"By amplifying a sexual licentiousness thats out of control." You can't understand that statement? Of course not. It's so common where you live AND go to school it is simply invisible to you now.

I love your explanation of the Constitution. Why would you have a problem with Bush then? Or Texas legislators? Hypocrisy finds a definition in there somewhere.

The Bible and homosexuality? Not in "Liberal churches." Thanks for agreeing with the facts and then of course Liberating them at the same time. Sorry to go Biblical on you but Paul has a good point on this in 1 Corinthians 11:19. I'm willing to let his position play out here in the good ol' USA.

Chiristianty becomes illegal the day same-sex mariage is law. Do the math. In fact it is not allowable to hate-speech against homosexuality in churches in other "western" countries as we write. Tic-tic-tic-tic goes the American clock. It is absolutely being forced on a populace that knows what's up.

Homosexuality can only be forced on anybody. Do the math. And, do you really need a diagram of the first experience scenario? It is not hateful to believe in one's religion and at the same time agree with anatomy and physiology to back up that belief! It is the essence of the American experience. Secularists want to take credit for America but it was religion that propelled European's to this land. But why cloud the issue with more facts. Both the Bible and science agree on the issue we're debating.

Please stop asking me to explain my explanations. It does not bode well for your powers to reason. And please know that "my position," it will always be opposite yours.

[DanMRaymond]

Clearly we will always disagree but the things that you say to support your decision are ridiculous. You have this idea that things are chaotic and out of control. Your view on the morality of homosexuality is an opinion, but those statements are not. Those are false statements. There is no such thing as chaos right now and there won't be. That's completely nonsense. All you can say to explain it is tell me that I just fail to see it. You still have not explained what exactly is "out of control." I doubt you have a real answer.

And no, homosexuality isn't forced upon anybody. People are born that way. You still have failed to explain how this "forcing" is happening.

I'm not asking you to explain your explanations because you haven't given me any explanations.

And no I don't like Bush or any politicians becuase they're all liars and they're all rich and their agendas are fueld by business and however they can get the most votes. Liberal or Conservatives all around are the same.

[AlAyeti]

Dan,

Bye.