Shameful, Hateful and Cruel
The AJC reports that the evil bigots who control the state Legislature may be entertaining the idea of banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents.
The (il)logic behind considering the ban:
“The Bible does address [homosexuality] as a sin,” said Sadie Fields, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia.
What I’d like to know is this — If sinning is what makes people unworthy to be parents, then why stop at homosexuality?
How about banning overweight people from adopting or fostering? Enough Georgia children already think that macaroni and cheese is a vegetable. Let’s close the legal loophole that makes it legal for fat Georgians like, say, State Rep. Earl Ehrhart-(R)*, to expose the state’s most vulnerable children to their gluttonous lifestyle. Don’t forget, gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins! Please support the Save Georgia’s Children From Fat People Like State Rep. Earl Ehrhart Act. Do it for the children.
And while we’re protecting the kids, how about keeping children away from adulterers? We all agree that it’s a sin, right? I’m sure that the state Republican Party wouldn’t have a problem with that. After all, it’s not like any of them have ever had sex outside of marriage**.
*(Why am I singling out Earl Ehrhart? Because his politics disgust me and because he’s the first fatty I found when I randomly clicked through State Rep. bios).
** (Mike Bowers isn’t just a Republican who had an affair, he’s the fucktard who, as Georgia’s Attorney General, argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that consensual sodomy is “as heinous as the crime of rape.” In 1997, when he was running for Governor, his extramarital mistress of 10 years informed Georgia’s voters that he was devoutly pro-sodomy in bed. He lost.)
In the article you link to Sadie Fields says “The whole atmosphere that surrounds homosexuality is outside the mainstream,” she said. “It is not conducive to a healthy upbringing.”
In an interesting article about Sadie Fields we learn what she considers to be a “healthy upbringing”:
“the evil bigots who control the state Legislature”
-Typical. If you don’t agree with somebody and can’t form a logical argument, it’s best to generalize them as ‘evil’ thereby removing yourself of the burden of having to make sense.
“The (il)logic behind considering the ban:
‘The Bible does address [homosexuality] as a sin,’ said Sadie Fields, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia.”
-Sadie Fields is not a member of the state legislature. She is a lobbyist who is representing a group of people who have a viewpoint.
“What I’d like to know is this — If sinning is what makes people unworthy to be parents, then why stop at homosexuality?”
-Nobody ever claimed that sinning disqualifies somebody from being a parent. That doesn’t make logical sense, not even for a Christian. It is the Christian belief that all people have sin. Therefore, no Christian would ever claim what you so generally inferred. The idea that a child is better off with a mother and father makes sense to a lot of people who have no religious affiliation at all. Just because Sadie Fields agrees with this position doesn’t make this a religious issue. The focus must be what’s best for the child, not what is best for the adopters.
“How about banning overweight people from adopting or fostering?”
-That would exclude Rosie OíDonnell, so aren’t you the one who is now being the bigot?
“and while we’re protecting the kids, how about keeping children away from adulterers?”
-I completely agree with this comment. Having parents that run a high risk of divorce is not in the +best interests of the child+.
“he’s the first fatty I found when I randomly clicked through State Rep. bios”
-Thanks for letting us in on your exhaustive and analytical research methods.
“Mike Bowers… blah blah blah”
-This is a neat strategy that I see people like you do way too much. You pick 1 person who disagrees with you, who happens to be a scum bag (Mike Bowers is a scum bag), and you’d like to think that he represents everyone whose opinion is contrary to yours. This gives your argument a seemingly “higher ground” so that your point becomes more credible, not based upon reasoning, but just because the 1 person you singled out is a dirt bag.
Take care.
Steve Eady says bla bla bla bla bla.
This post RULED. Forget NOLA, I Steve Eady says bla bla bla bla bla.
This post RULED. Forget NOLA, I
ayo andisheh even tho youre right you come off like a real asshole when you make this shit about petty disses and private lives instead of real life politickin you can take down (ie aint the govts bizness who we fuckin)(& dont give me that ‘republicans do it so our side can too’ bullshit either)
>>-Typical. If you don’t agree with somebody and can’t form a logical argument, it’s best to generalize them as ‘evil’ thereby removing yourself of the burden of having to make sense.
If you deny someone the legal right to care for children because you don’t approve of their sexual orientation, you’re a bigot.
If you deny a needy child the right to a safe, loving home just because you want to fire up your political base, you’re evil.
Add it up and you’ve got Evil Bigots.
See, it’s not generalizing. It’s math!
“If you deny someone the legal right to care for children because you don’t approve of their sexual orientation, you’re a bigot.”
-NAMBLA and the rest of the pedophiles of the world welcome you aboard as their spokesperson. You wouldn’t want to be a bigot now would you?
“If you deny a needy child the right to a safe, loving home just because you want to fire up your political base, you’re evil.”
-You have a different definition of what comprises a ‘safe, loving home’ than some people. That doesn’t make people on either side of the issue ‘evil’.
“See, it’s not generalizing. It’s math!”
-Somewhere, Euclid, is rolling over in his grave.
You’re right, Steve.
If there’s one thing those ancient Greeks couldn’t stand, it’s homosexuality.
intellect over emotions would have served you better here as there are plenty of rational reasons for continuing to permit foster children to be adopted or cared for by gay or lesbian couples. btw, I don’t believe, as you appear to say, that there actually is a “legal right to care for children” written in any law or our constitution (this obviously is different that the right to have children)…the law doesn’t look at it from the angle of whether Bruce and Bill or Leslie and Patty have the right to care for a child and thus they should be able to but instead it is looked at from the best interests of the child . . . and obviously there are many homosexual couples, even fat ugly ones who like to eat cheeseballs for breakfast, who can serve the best interests of a foster child better than some straight couples. In general the totality of the circumstances should be considered as it applies to the well being of the child and some considerations may be different for homosexual couples than for straight couples, or fat ones.
Doesnt it seem ridiculous though that a gay couple can adopt a child or have a child through a surrogate but they cant get married ..who are these frickin fucktards blocking gays from marriage..damn fat fuck evil adulterous bigots.
Harshly negative people shouldn’t be able to adopt either.
The Bible was not written by God but my man… who is FALLIBLE. Clearly, they made a mistake when writing this passage but white-out hadn’t been invented yet.
In addition, the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” There is no footnote which adds “unless Iraqi oil and lucrative construction contracts are involved.”
Anyway, gay people are so much fun! Why deny American children the right to have a FABULOUS upbringing? :)
crap…did the U.S. really invade my Iraq solely for lucrative construction contracts and oil? damn them..they should have done venezuela instead. And does the Bible really say thou shalt not kill? Thankfully Allah didn’t go for that in the Quran. Subhan Allah.
p.s. are we talking about children being adopted by gays or trashing republicans and Christians to make a point where such trashing isn’t necessary to make a point?
Do children need a mother AND a father?
“You have a different definition of what comprises a ‘safe, loving home’ than some people. That doesn’t make people on either side of the issue ‘evil’.”
So, a home with two stable, employed or otherwise productively occupied (ie, stay-at-home) parents who happen to be the same gender is not safe? Two people who respect and love one another and the kids are a clear and present danger to a child’s well-being? Or are these people all hot under the collar about certain adult activities in which same-sex couples participate?
Because I hate to break it to you — hetero couples have sex behind closed doors when they have kids, too. So unless you’re saying that gay couples are getting rugburn while watching SpongeBob with the kids, you really have no argument. All of the things that a gay couple might do that are dangerous to children would be equally dangerous when done by a hetero couple.
-Sex in front of the kids
-Drugs
-Inappropriate consumption of alcohol
-Swearing like a sailor (Hey, it IS Pirate Day!)
-Smoking
-Driving at high speeds
-Inappropriate use of car seats
-Inadequate childproofing of a home
It could go on endlessly.
Bon Jour, La Dauphine! Comment allez-vous? I agree, and I wish my parents were “fabulous.” :-)
And Andisheh, I agree that it’s ridiculous to ban gay people from adopting children. Especially when so many abusive or ill-equipped straight people get to have as many as they please.
gawddamnit, this stupid blog and its mortal fear of HTML. You type one “less than” sign and it cuts everything off.
What I SAID was,
Forget NOLA, I <3 Andisheh.
the best interests of a child (i.e. a safe, loving and nurturing home) can be provided by both qualified gay couples as by qualified straight couples. simple. Loving people willing to open their home and hearts to a child and care for that child, protect them from fat fucktards, are qualified regardless of orientation or race or creed (except Jehovah Witnesses like Michael Jackson..so evil). Is it OK for Christians or Muslims to believe that such is wrong? Yes..it is a matter of their faith, not a matter of bigotry. Should such be written into law? Well that shouldn’t be a matter of faith, it should be a discussion of the best interests of the child. The fact that abusive or ill equipped straight couples have kids is besides the point…this post was about adoption and foster parents, not the right to procreate (gays do have the right to procreate via surrogates or donors). It also is pointless to buttress any argument by merely pointing out moral flaws of the other side…there are evil bigot fucktards (i take offense to this term as a mentally challenged person btw) on both sides of the aisles and in between…there are abusive, maniacal gays just as there are abusive, maniacal straights…adultery is prevalent amongst straight couples just as it is gay couples, vice versa. Fat people are everywhere, just as are Atlanta Metblogger Arse Patters.
That’s all very well, Jehad, but it still doesn’t explain why a couple’s sexual preferences should exclude them from the adoption/foster process. The idea that gay people are morally unsuitable is a purely religious view that is not based in fact. It’s bigotry because it’s hatred based on an untrue perception of gay people (ie, “they” are all poor role-models) when in fact, there are just as many poor role models out there who put their private parts in “morally acceptable” places (or not, as their proclivities may dictate). A gay couple lives across the street from me, and they’re raising two polite, active little boys, who are more well-mannered than the majority of the neighborhood kids. I’d personally be thrilled if the other parents in the neighborhood paid as much attention as those two do to keeping their kids out of the road.
so this is about parents who do or do not keep their kids out of the road, not sexual orientation? Then we’re in agreement.
anway, what are you missing here? i’m saying a couple’s sexual orientation (‘preferences’ is a different matter…if you know what Im saying) SHOULD NOT preclude them from being able to adopt a child if they are qualified and again it doesn’t serve any argument to point out the flawed parents in this world. Actually I praise all the flawed parents in the world for creating such great artists, songwriters, etc (but that’s another matter)…anyway, that could go on ad nauseam. My point about people calling each other a bigot is personal to me I guess…you can choose otherwise…I personally refuse to call say Muslims who generally believe homosexuality is forbidden a bigot because to me that is being a bigot right back at them. I may not proscribe to their beliefs (yes some may be hateful about it but majority arent) and as a matter of law I may be strongly oppose to what they may seek to impose on all but I won’t attack the general views of a particular religion just to serve my argument..especially when other more rational points exist.
anyway, I implore all to adopt kids instead of procreating…dont be so selfish as to need to bring your own kids into the world when there are kids already here on earth who need families ….and for Allah’s sake, don’t let them play in the road.
(that was prescribe, not proscribe..above..totally different)
and again, sexual preferences shouldnt exclude anyone from adopting. for me…as to reasons why a particular gay couple would appropriately be excluded from the adoption process..well there are a number of reasons…a whole slew of reasons to do so.
but they are generally the same reasons why you would exclude a particular straight couple from the adoption process. it would be after a determination that they aren’t qualified to serve the best interests of that particular child based on the totality of the circumstances. Again we are talking about adoption not procreating…adoption isn’t a legal right of a couple…it is about the child’s interests not the couples. It is about assessing the parents qualifications and thank God it is…perhaps we can prevent a kid from being raised by parents who let their kids play in the street. Procreating on the other hand is the right of the couple..whether gay or straight and yes many gay couples are giving birth to their own children..friends of mine indeed and many congrats to them and their child. And yes many straight couples are giving birth to little brats who arent well mannered, polite or active.
blah blah blah
I think what irks me the most is when proponents of gay adoption or foster parenting use the old… “well isnt it better to be with gay parents who care than with alcoholic or abusive heterosexual parents etc etc etc.” As if it is necessary to prove the potential worth of a gay adoptive parent by comparing it to the worst society has to offer. It is always diminsihing to the upstanding gay parents to use this analogy. Just say gay people can be great parents but stop with the comparison bullshit as it just drags the whole conversation into the gutter. Stick with the positive and stop making random comparisons to what other people have or have not done. Dont diminish your own argument with ugly rhetoric to show hypocrisy. It never works.
Thinking something is wrong is fine. Stoning people, not so much. Excluding them legally with no real basis other than relgion is not okay, either.
I’m not sure if that last comment by LanceRedStateRant is aimed at me, but to clarify — my point is that people are generally the same. I didn’t say that being with a stable gay family is better than being with a wife beater. My point was, if you have a problem with two consenting adults having private relations when those two adults happen to be parents, you are crazy, because straight people have sex, too. Even married couples.
“Excluding them legally with no real basis other than relgion (sic) is not okay, either.”
Amen.
“straight people have sex, too.”
Amen
“Even married couples.”
Ame…wait…are you sure about this?
btw…I’m far from a card-carrying member of the aclu…but interestingly enough their website helps explain what i was saying. Of relevance:
“As all adoption statutes make clear, and as voters and legislators understand, nobody has the “right” to adopt a child. Instead, adoptive parents are chosen based on their documented ability to be good parents. The governing principle of all adoption policies is (or should be) the best interests of the particular child in need of placement in a permanent home.
Because nobody has the right to adopt, our opposition to anti-gay adoption bills is not based on “gay rights” and we should not frame our arguments that way. Instead, what we are arguing is that each adoption must be decided on a case-by-case basis, in the best interests of the child, not by new broad government regulations. Adoption decisions should be made by parents and professionals, not by politicians and the government. The important thing is making sure that the child has a permanent home, with adults who have the skills to be good parents. And all the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. (See Part III below). The issue is not “gay rights” or equality.”
Hello