Texas is going backward when it comes to children

In what can only be described as one of the most disgusting displays of bigotry and discrimination stemming from the current anti-gay federal government run by Dubya and his cronies, Texas lawmakers are trying their best to write into law a ban on gay foster parents.

Republican Rep. Robert Talton, the cretin who introduced the amendment, said, "It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual."

You sicken me, Bob, and I assure you that I will do my best to smear your name all over the media so that others can see what kind of bigot, hypocrite and hateful bastard you really are.  Your place in hell will be especially hot and uncomfortable, I'm afraid, since you know how prisoners dislike those who try to hurt children.

Arkansas tried this very same thing but their law was struck down in December when a judge said it was unconstitutional.  Apparently the clueless idiots in the Texas legislature missed that memo.

If the law passes and is signed by Governor Rick Perry — something he has promised he would do — it's estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 kids could be affected.  These children are currently in homes where the foster parents are gay and, if enacted, the law would require those children to be removed and placed in other homes.

I simply do not understand how, when our state already has resource problems when it comes to caring for disadvantaged children, we could possibly justify taking them out of loving, stable and decent homes simply because the foster parents aren't heterosexual.  It's been proven time and again through scientific methods that growing up with one or more gay parents has no direct or negative impact on the development of children, yet here we are putting radical fundamentalist religion ahead of science and the Constitution.

Oh, yes, you can rest assured that this won't pass the constitutional test.  As I discussed in the most recent installment of my gay marriage series, the Constitution strictly prohibits these kinds of laws at the state level.  Not only is it discriminatory (you'd think they had learned their lesson with the sodomy law issue), but it recklessly endangers the lives of the children involved (can you justify removing them from good homes based on intolerance?) and specifically forbids a portion of the Texas population from taking part in a government program based solely on what is protected information — their sexual orientation.

One must also consider the fact that foster parents are paid by the state, so Texas will also be taking away state-sponsored benefits from a class of citizens specifically because of their sexual orientation.

No, those in the Texas government are not very smart at all.  Rick Perry, Dubya's whore of a protégé, is intentionally alienating a large portion of the Texas population (yes, "Dick" Perry, there are a lot of us here in Texas) and will most certainly pay politically for that.  The rest of the Repugnicans — and those spineless Democrats who voted for the law (shame on you!) — will also have to fork over some political capital soon.  This will go to the courts, it will be overturned, and Texas will remember how our own lawmakers tried to hurt Texas children by dragging their own religious beliefs into the state capitol and trying to beat Texans into submission with bigotry.

Gay (foster) parents cannot protect their children from the charged and often hateful dialogue that maligns them as immoral and deviant, especially when such attacks come from the very government which is charged with protecting its citizens and ensuring the safety of children.  Anti-gay rhetoric undermines these children's sense of security as they live with an ongoing anxiety that they could be removed from their homes without warning.  Texas' government is proving definitively that it's more than mere rhetoric, that it's actually a coordinated effort on the part of religious zealots at every level of society to undermine freedom and engender hate and prejudice within society in the hopes that a cultural war against non-heterosexuals will begin.

I do realize all of this is a political ploy intended to pander to the Christian cults who now run this country by way of the Dubya régime.  The idea is to look like you're trying to squelch the gay population and diminish their rights in full violation of the Constitution since that is the ploy Dubya uses and engenders — and even promotes — in his fellow cultists and Repugnicans.

The non-heterosexual population of this country is quickly tiring of the whipping-boy position we're being put in, constantly being used as pawns to stir up hatred in America and to violate the Constitution.  I can only hope that we as a class of people wake up soon and get our collective acts together before we find ourselves in "internment camps" like the Japanese did during World War II.

I assure you that Dubya and the rest of the right-wing cultists are trying their very best to make this happen.

4 thoughts on “Texas is going backward when it comes to children”

  1. Good for Texas. Hopefully more states will follow. Children need A structured home that shows true moral values. Having two gay dads doesn’t quite fulfill that requirement.

  2. I certainly welcome your anonymous point of view and appreciate the feedback.  You failed to provide any data to support your argument, so I'd like to help you out with some basic facts.

    At least 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

    Between 1970 and 1992, the proportion of babies born outside of marriage leaped from 11% to 30%.

    The marriage rate has fallen nearly 30% since 1970 and the divorce rate has increased about 40%.

    75% of all divorced people remarry, half of them within three years.

    Divorce rates among Christians start at 21% for Lutherans and go as high as 31% for non-denominational churches, and conservative Christian groups divorce with more regularity than atheists and agnostics.

    Study after study has shown that the sexual orientation of parents makes no difference in the sexual orientation of children, nor does the orientation of parents have any impact on any indicators of child welfare.

    More than 90% of sons whose parents were gay were found to be heterosexual.

    Reports on similarities and differences between heterosexual fathers and matched gay fathers showed no empirical difference between the value of children to heterosexual parents as compared to homosexual parents except in one important way — significant differences were found in that gay fathers reflected a more traditional attitude toward family life and served to protect against societal rejection.

    An empirical study of the differences and similarities between gay fathers and non-gay fathers showed gay fathers were generally more strict, but they were also more responsive and took more care in socializing their children than their non-gay counterparts.

    A study of lesbian couples living together with their 3-9 year old children born to them through artificial insemination and a matched sample of heterosexual parents and their children revealed the lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did the heterosexual couples.

    A comparison of the aspects of child development in single-parent lesbian and single-parent heterosexual households showed psychiatric problems among the children were infrequent in both groups but proportionately higher in the heterosexual group.

    You’re right!  I see the superior structured home and true moral values you speak of.

  3. Romans 2:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is undeemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (they had sexually transmitted diseases)

    It’s wrong, don’t subject innocent children to something that is unnatural and sinful. How is the family going to have a chance to heal itself if it is falling apart because of gay and other immoral people keep insisting we allow unnatural situations to go on.

    Don’t tell me gay couples don’t split up either. My sister is a lesbian, she has been through several “partner” alliances and they end just like a marriage does. I love her but she knows I do not approve of her lifestyle.

  4. Romans 2:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is undeemly [sic]and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (they had sexually transmitted diseases)

    Well, isn’t that interesting… The fastest growing HIV infection demographic is black heterosexual women. I wonder what that means… You can’t really argue with that statistic unless you make a racist remark. Although I suspect you have that within you, I doubt you’re willing to justify your position with racism (while you obviously feel bigotry against homosexuals is OK). I also wonder why the largest base of infections for sexually transmitted diseases is the heterosexual community, not the gay community, and their proliferation is far more extensive among your so-called holier lifestyle than those you are trying to subjugate. Part of this can certainly be attributed to the statistical probability associated with more heterosexual people on the planet, but the fact that your community is suffering from the very same STDs begs the question of why you’d interpret that verse that way. (To clarify, I disagree with that interpretation. I also want to point out that the verse you’re quoting is Romans 1:27, not 2:27.)

    The rest of your response indicates you didn’t read a thing I wrote in my original comment. There was no claim that homosexual homes are more stable than heterosexual homes, but there was the claim that no evidence exists to support your premise that they are somehow not good for children. In fact, the evidence shows quite the contrary: gay homes are as stable and supportive as straight homes concerning raising kids, and this is inarguable scientific fact from study after study. The only leg you have to stand on is your shallow, religiously fogged perception of reality based on mythology. If you remove your religion from the consideration, what reason do you have to argue against it?

    Remember that this is not a Christian nation just as it is not an Islamic nation (nor any other religion). Despite Christianity’s recent inroads into the creation of a theocratic plutocracy here in America, that is wrong. Pushing your beliefs on others is an abhorrent behavior best left to uncivilized countries. We are a nation of laws and equality, not of religious crusades and inquisitions.

    It would be wrong for you to argue with the Bible, though, as I can demonstrate a great many such verses from your book that clearly show you are as damned as you believe every homosexual to be. Do you eat shrimp, lobster, crab, or other seafood which does not swim and have scales? Have you ever accepted a gift? Do you eat pork? Are you perfect? Do you owe money, or have you ever owed money? Do you strive to make money? You see, there are biblical proscriptions for each of these. Why then do you choose which directives to follow and enforce while ignoring those that seem inconvenient to you? If you want to know why using the Bible in your argument is wrong, read this post to get an idea of how hypocritical you’re being by not putting equal weight on all of those other Judeo-Christian rules that your book places on you.

    Oh, and remember it’s your book and your religion, not mine, so stop trying to beat everyone over the head with it. That’s not what the Bible tells you to do and you’re not acting like it tells you to act. You’re a charlatan, a betrayer of your own beliefs, and proclaiming your moral superiority does nothing but demonstrate your lack of character and inability to comprehend your own religious teachings. You offend your own god, dear sir, and you’d know as much if you actually read the book you’re trying to use to justify your own hate and intolerance.

    It’s wrong, don’t subject innocent children to something that is unnatural and sinful. How is the family going to have a chance to heal itself if it is falling apart because of gay and other immoral people keep insisting we allow unnatural situations to go on.

    “Unnatural and sinful”? It is only sinful by way of your religion, and I’ve already mentioned why that’s irrelevant. If you believe it’s sinful, then don’t practice it, but don’t push your beliefs on me and the rest of the country. I’m not interested. They’re your rules, not mine. As for unnatural, I suppose then that you have determined scientifically that being gay is not genetic, environmental, societal, or otherwise caused by nothing other than a choice to be hated, ridiculed, despised, subjugated and otherwise brutalized by the radical, fundamental majority. Am I correct? If you have proven it’s unnatural, the rest of the world is waiting to see your research and results. You certainly would have answered a longstanding question in the debate. If you’re unable to provide such information, then again I say stop pushing your backward religious dogma on everyone else. Set an example through living, not through pushing rules and regulations on those who don’t believe the same thing you do.

    Don’t tell me gay couples don’t split up either.

    I’m sorry. I checked the original post and my comment. I was unable to find any inference that could be construed to mean that gay couples don’t split up. I’d never make such a claim as it’s false. If splitting up is the deciding factor on foster parents, no heterosexual who has ever divorced should be allowed to participate. Let’s make sure we’re applying the rules equally, yes?

    Finally, here’s something from your own book you need to understand. Matthew 23:27-28:

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
    Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    And to close, the intent of foster parents is to protect children who can no longer be with their birth parents (for whatever reason). Since we know that religious upbringing gives rise to child abuse, we should also pass a law that prohibits Christians (and all other faiths) from participating in the foster parent program. It’s only fair if we are really trying to protect children as you claim.

Leave a Reply