Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   In an effort to keep the gays from adopting, Tennessee legislature proposes bill banning all unwed couples from adopting. Genius   ( upi.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

1357 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2009 at 8:29 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2009-03-02 05:17:18 PM  
The ones being punished by this are the children.
 
2009-03-02 05:24:22 PM  

Diogenes: The ones being punished by this are the children.


And NAMBLA, can't leave them out.
 
2009-03-02 05:26:47 PM  

robomonkster: And NAMBLA, can't leave them out.


i don't think there is any law that prohibits child-molesters from getting married.
 
2009-03-02 05:30:45 PM  
This is just ridiculous.
 
2009-03-02 05:33:33 PM  
So Uncle-Daddy and Cousin-Mommy have to keep the kids?
 
2009-03-02 05:34:02 PM  
"We believe Gay parents raise children in an unfit environment, what can we do to prevent them from adopting!?"

"I know, lets have those kids be raised with NO parents!"

"BRILLIANT!"farking ignorant twats.
 
2009-03-02 05:34:46 PM  
Oh fark off.
 
2009-03-02 05:36:43 PM  
To end gay sex, I propose ending all sex. We only need sex to make babies, therefore make all babies test tube babies. We can castrate men and women after we harvest the necessary sperm and eggs at 18- what I'm told is the prime age to mate. We don't need this sex; it is evil.

And may I say, ladies and gents, no more marriage troubles. No more bad sitcoms. Half of all stand up comedians will be forced to retire. No more angst riddled teenage suck-fests. We can live in a peaceful and scientific society. We can live moral lives; pure lives. Let me say this again: NO MORE SEX!!! It is pointless, evil, corrupt.

Utopia can be realized. Put down your leaves. We need them not any more to cover our privates, for the pure are going public! We can end sexism, rape, sodomy, heartbreak, impure morality, and lack of educational drive in one swift stroke. No More Sex. Republicans Unite!
 
2009-03-02 05:38:42 PM  
As somebody who lives in Tennessee, I am NOT getting a kick out of the FAILBOAT that is our state govt.
 
2009-03-02 05:39:06 PM  

robomonkster: And NAMBLA, can't leave them out.


WTF are you talking about?
 
2009-03-02 05:42:10 PM  
It takes a special kind of stupid to be a Tennessean legislator.

"...the danger for Tennesseans isn't so much that they may be descended from apes as that they may be overtaken by them."
~Bill Bryson
 
2009-03-02 05:46:14 PM  
If the environment is stable & there are 2 loving parents, who the f*ck cares if they're gay? This shiat pisses me off. Responsible people can't adopt because they're gay, but f*cking Octomom & all those other monsters that are unfit for parenthood can keep kicking them out at will & we'll just keep flipping the bill for them.
 
2009-03-02 05:46:58 PM  

ninjakirby: "We believe Gay parents raise children in an unfit environment, what can we do to prevent them from adopting!?"

"I know, lets have those kids be raised with NO parents!"

"BRILLIANT!"farking ignorant twats.


This. As if we don't have a problem getting children out of group homes and the like. Lets limit things even more to make it even harder! Yay!

Which not only means the children suffer, but the taxpayers do as well since taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these orphanages.
 
2009-03-02 05:49:26 PM  
i'm so glad i'm moving.
 
2009-03-02 05:51:33 PM  

robomonkster: And NAMBLA, can't leave them out.


healthbolt.netView Full Size
 
2009-03-02 05:52:17 PM  
Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.
 
2009-03-02 05:56:32 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


Ay, there's the rub.
 
2009-03-02 05:57:06 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


The truly sad thing is if the person is actually intelligent enough to cite you some studies (which is rare enough), the ones they bring to the table that show raising children in a homosexual environment is bad come to this conclusion because the children generally have lower motivation, sense of self worth and lowered socials skills OWING TO THE RIDICULE THEY RECEIVE FOR HAVING GAY PARENTS.

I'm not making this shiat up. Go find some conservative websites on this issue and read their studies. That is really and truly the strongest argument they can muster.
 
2009-03-02 05:59:21 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


i'm not sure if this counts as religiously justified bigotry, but i believe that the alien-operated mind-control rays that control gay people (and the gay agenda at large) can cause cancer in children. it's in the best interest of the children not to let them too close to the gay population.
 
2009-03-02 06:01:00 PM  
FTFA:
Children in foster care usually have few people waiting to adopt them, said Adam Pertman, who heads the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York group that works to develop better adoption policies.

According to the Dave Thomas Foundation (new window) there are over 150,000 children waiting in North America's foster care system.

It takes a special kind narrow mindedness and stupidity to let their fear of teh ghey lead to legislation that hurts children.
 
2009-03-02 06:01:53 PM  

ninjakirby: That is really and truly the strongest argument they can muster.


It's really the same avenue of justification they use with Intelligent Design.

"OK, we know we're retarded, but if we word our objections differently and more sciencey sounding, maybe nobody will notice."

So Creationism becomes Intelligent Design, xenophobia becomes national pride, and hatin' on queers becomes faux concern for children being hated on by homophobes. Homophobes LIKE THOSE SUPPOSEDLY CONCERNED.

Circular logic: bring a barf bag.
 
2009-03-02 06:02:42 PM  
Have these people ever met a real live, stable gay couple? They may be stereotypes, but as they say, even stereotypes are grounded in some reality. The general level of education and economic success is higher. The child will likely be exposed to critical thinking and openness. And let's face it, their bedroom is going to look fabulous.

I lived in a very gay portion of the city for many years. Much of my socializing was with the gay couples on my block. I can't recount the number of dinner parties, etc., where one of the couple would eventually break down in tears if the subject of adoption came up.

What you're doing to these people...it's wrong.
 
2009-03-02 06:02:56 PM  

mactobain: It takes a special kind narrow mindedness and stupidity to let their fear of teh ghey lead to legislation that hurts children.


the truly amazing thing is that typically it is these same people that want to force women to have children they aren't prepared for and give them up for adoption rather than allow abortions.
 
2009-03-02 06:03:08 PM  

ninjakirby: .

The truly sad thing is if the person is actually intelligent enough to cite you some studies (which is rare enough), the ones they bring to the table that show raising children in a homosexual environment is bad come to this conclusion because the children generally have lower motivation, sense of self worth and lowered socials skills OWING TO THE RIDICULE THEY RECEIVE FOR HAVING GAY PARENTS.

I'm not making this shiat up. Go find some conservative websites on this issue and read their studies. That is really and truly the strongest argument they can muster.


That argument sounds suspiciously like an irrefutable "for the children" scenario.
 
2009-03-02 06:06:49 PM  
One of the biggest problems with this is the equivocation of homosexuals and pedophiles that these conservative, religulous douchebags use to advance their point. The irony lies in the fact that they are usually pedophiles themselves.
 
2009-03-02 06:09:33 PM  

ninjakirby: The truly sad thing is if the person is actually intelligent enough to cite you some studies (which is rare enough), the ones they bring to the table that show raising children in a homosexual environment is bad come to this conclusion because the children generally have lower motivation, sense of self worth and lowered socials skills OWING TO THE RIDICULE THEY RECEIVE FOR HAVING GAY PARENTS.


Whose fault really is that though -- it seems like it would be the public / "society's" fault on that one. Until gay marriage is accepted by the public at large in great amounts, that will always happen to kids who have gay parents. Kids are vicious, everyone knows it.

Is that a good enough justification to keep gay parents from adopting kids? I don't think so, but I could see the argument.
 
2009-03-02 06:12:45 PM  
OK LETS DO IT! But instead of allowing adoptive parents to chose a kid or get an import they have to take whats available and the agency choses the make model and age. No you can't have a six month old blond haired , blue eyed girl. You get a 13year old Successful African American Child whose mother was on Crack during the pregnancy. Don't like it? Then STFU and make your own. I know of Gays who have adopted and guess what, they were the ones adopting the kids no one else wanted and giving them a chance to be loved productive members of society. If these asswipes had to work as hard as the gays did to be accepted in society the world would be a better place.
 
2009-03-02 06:13:03 PM  

KaponoFor3: Is that a good enough justification to keep gay parents from adopting kids? I don't think so, but I could see the argument.


it's certainly the argument i use against fat people having children. other kids are certainly going to make fun of the progeny for having a mother that is fat. so fat. so fat that when she sits on a rainbow she makes skittles. that fat.
children are cruel, and we should protect them from each-other by limiting which kids should be allowed to have parents.

/because kids will never make fun of an orphan
 
2009-03-02 06:13:21 PM  

KaponoFor3: Whose fault really is that though -- it seems like it would be the public / "society's" fault on that one. Until gay marriage is accepted by the public at large in great amounts, that will always happen to kids who have gay parents. Kids are vicious, everyone knows it.

Is that a good enough justification to keep gay parents from adopting kids? I don't think so, but I could see the argument.



As a lawyer, you should be ashamed. It's not an argument at all, it's just restating (and defending) the status quo.

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because no one likes them."

"Blacks shouldn't go to the same schools because white people will be offended."

"Etc...Etc...Etc..."
 
2009-03-02 06:14:50 PM  

thomps: it's certainly the argument i use against fat people having children. other kids are certainly going to make fun of the progeny for having a mother that is fat. so fat. so fat that when she sits on a rainbow she makes skittles. that fat.


That's one fat biatch.

thomps: children are cruel, and we should protect them from each-other by limiting which kids should be allowed to have parents.


I don't agree with it, as I stated above, but if the justification for it is going to be "its better for the kids", then you should also be willing to examine some evidence that says "it won't be better for the kids", even if the reason is because they get made fun of it because of it.
 
2009-03-02 06:16:04 PM  

sloppy shoes: As a lawyer, you should be ashamed


Apparently you don't know what lawyers do -- we see arguments and have to decide which ones suck and which ones are good (either in front of judges or in front of a jury). Here, as I clearly said above, I think this argument is not a good one.

But it *is* an argument that at least has to be examined.
 
2009-03-02 06:17:45 PM  

KaponoFor3: I don't agree with it, as I stated above, but if the justification for it is going to be "its better for the kids", then you should also be willing to examine some evidence that says "it won't be better for the kids", even if the reason is because they get made fun of it because of it.


right, but the alternative is not:
either let a gay couple adopt the child or let a traditional nuclear family have it

the alternative is:
let a gay couple adopt the child or let the kid sit in a foster home
 
2009-03-02 06:18:15 PM  
I would much rather see a child get adopted by a gay/lesbian couple that will love him/her and provide the child with a great life, than to see the kid stuck in foster home. Or even worse, what about all the dysfunctional households that kids live in? I know there are dysfunctional homosexual households just like straight households.

But doing this reduces the opportunities for these kids that much more. Tragic.
 
2009-03-02 06:20:50 PM  
This is why I should be allowed to hunt men for sport...
 
2009-03-02 06:21:48 PM  

KaponoFor3:
Apparently you don't know what lawyers do -- we see arguments and have to decide which ones suck and which ones are good (either in front of judges or in front of a jury). Here, as I clearly said above, I think this argument is not a good one.

But it *is* an argument that at least has to be examined.


Not really. Only in the basest sense of the word where you imply a mere disagreement with someone.

From a (I'll admit) non-official law dictionary: A form of expression consisting of a coherent set of reasons presenting or supporting a point of view; a series of reasons given for or against a matter under discussion that is intended to convince or persuade the listener. (Blacks doesn't have an online version). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Argument


It's just a restatement of the status quo and implicit defense of discrimination by implicitly claiming action or change is essentially impossible. It is hardly and argument.
 
2009-03-02 06:30:31 PM  

sloppy shoes: It's just a restatement of the status quo and implicit defense of discrimination by implicitly claiming action or change is essentially impossible. It is hardly and argument.


If you are getting your understanding/definition of an argument from the dictionary, I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you.

If the justification for letting gays adopt is "its better for the children than sitting in foster homes", then you have to be willing to also examine evidence that says "putting kids in a gay home lowers their self-esteem, social skills, and motivation". I'm not saying you have to believe it or think its a GOOD argument, it's just one that has to be evaluated.

Besides, it's easy to argue the results of social science studies. Just look at the way the study is conducted, there are always ways to poke holes in its conclusions.
 
2009-03-02 06:35:50 PM  

KaponoFor3: If the justification for letting gays adopt is "its better for the children than sitting in foster homes", then you have to be willing to also examine evidence that says "putting kids in a gay home lowers their self-esteem, social skills, and motivation". I'm not saying you have to believe it or think its a GOOD argument, it's just one that has to be evaluated.


but you have to evaluate that evidence against the effect of living in a foster home on self-esteem, social skills and motivation. my childhood sucked compared to that of most trust-fund kids. should i, then, have been taken away from my parents?
 
2009-03-02 06:37:18 PM  

thomps: but you have to evaluate that evidence against the effect of living in a foster home on self-esteem, social skills and motivation.


Absolutely, I'm not saying you shouldn't. I think that should be the real comparison -- foster home v. gay adoption, because that's really the two options we are comparing here.
 
2009-03-02 06:39:04 PM  

KaponoFor3: Absolutely, I'm not saying you shouldn't. I think that should be the real comparison -- foster home v. gay adoption, because that's really the two options we are comparing here.


and if you are going to ban an entire class of people from adopting, there needs to be a gigantic gap between the two before you should be able to enforce that ban. i don't see that happening.
 
2009-03-02 06:41:23 PM  

KaponoFor3:
If you are getting your understanding/definition of an argument from the dictionary, I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you.

If the justification for letting gays adopt is "its better for the children than sitting in foster homes", then you have to be willing to also examine evidence that says "putting kids in a gay home lowers their self-esteem, social skills, and motivation". I'm not saying you have to believe it or think its a GOOD argument, it's just one that has to be evaluated.

Besides, it's easy to argue the results of social science studies. Just look at the way the study is conducted, there are always ways to poke holes in its conclusions.


Actually, no. I just used that definition to cite something. My definition would go much further, which is why I don't clarify it as an argument. An argument thinks through something, and develops an idea. The 2 arguments are not "Children would sit in foster homes; versus Children's self esteem is lowered in gay homes." By my standards, at best, that is one argument. If you cannot look at multiple sides, you have failed to make an argument.

So merely stating "Children have potentially lower self esteem in gay households" is not an argument; it is an unqualified statement. Even adding the addendum, "and this implies gay adoption is bad" is not an argument. In is an unqualified statement with an attached post hoc conclusion of no coherence.

So, even qualifying it with "I could see the reasoning" is beyond foolish. It is undeveloped, simplistic, and reliant upon popular characterizations and opinions rather than anything resembling coherent reasoning.
 
2009-03-02 06:44:12 PM  
Whoever thought this was a good idea is a bigger retard than Trig Palin.
 
2009-03-02 07:10:22 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


Still looking to see if a study has been done on this subject BUT based on a risk analysis gay couples might be prone to be better parents than straight couples. This is basing it on the fact that since gay couples cannot reproduce naturally then if they are willing to invest their available resources into an "offspring" then not only will they fully do so but are willing to invest more time and effort as well to ensure that their investment pays off.

This does not mean that straight couples are not just as good as adoptive parents it simply states that there is more at risk for the gay couple than the straight one.

But as I said I haven't seen a study done on this yet and this is simply based on observations made in a classroom discussion over this same topic. Sadly laws such as this one prevent studies such as the one I described to be performed properly due to small sample sizes that could only be obtained in states where this is not an issue. So yeah it sucks, let them adopt.
 
2009-03-02 07:11:02 PM  
this article doesn't really even do this any justice. from here (pops):


Rep. John J. DeBerry Jr., D-Memphis, and Sen. Paul Stanley, R-Memphis, introduced the bills in their respective chambers, but their reasons for reviving the debate are unclear.

Stanley did not respond to requests for comment, and DeBerry said there were aspects of his reasons for sponsoring the bill that he was unwilling to discuss with a reporter. DeBerry was also unwilling to say what sort of family structure he believes is best for children.

"If a member of the public would like to know my reasons, they can contact me, come into my office," he said. "We will shut the door, and I would be happy to share my reasons."


what a dick.
 
2009-03-02 07:17:06 PM  

sloppy shoes: To end gay sex, I propose ending all sex. We only need sex to make babies, therefore make all babies test tube babies. We can castrate men and women after we harvest the necessary sperm and eggs at 18- what I'm told is the prime age to mate. We don't need this sex; it is evil.

And may I say, ladies and gents, no more marriage troubles. No more bad sitcoms. Half of all stand up comedians will be forced to retire. No more angst riddled teenage suck-fests. We can live in a peaceful and scientific society. We can live moral lives; pure lives. Let me say this again: NO MORE SEX!!! It is pointless, evil, corrupt.

Utopia can be realized. Put down your leaves. We need them not any more to cover our privates, for the pure are going public! We can end sexism, rape, sodomy, heartbreak, impure morality, and lack of educational drive in one swift stroke. No More Sex. Republicans Unite!


fitsnews.comView Full Size


you said "stroke"
 
2009-03-02 07:19:10 PM  

sarahthustra:

"If a member of the public would like to know my reasons, they can contact me, come into my office," he said. "We will shut the door, and I would be happy to share my reasons."

what a dick.


Wow. I think I'm gonna take him up on that. Three hour drive ...yup, worth it. I suppose I can't lie and say I'm gay or my parents were gay but I could eat a choco-taco or something while he talked. Should I try and schedule that or ambush?
 
2009-03-02 07:23:03 PM  
I'd rather gay (non-pederast) parents adopt than more Octomoms running around...

I've seen some of those foster homes...
 
2009-03-02 07:25:01 PM  

H_is_for_Heretic: Should I try and schedule that or ambush?


Press conference ambush always seems like the best idea.

He's giving a speech and asks for questions and you pop it right in there. He will either give a non-answer or call security BUT it will get others thinking that perhaps he is hiding something.
 
2009-03-02 07:28:29 PM  

scruffy1: But as I said I haven't seen a study done on this yet and this is simply based on observations made in a classroom discussion over this same topic.


My folders are really disorganized, but I located one of the few I have.

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States

img23.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-03-02 07:31:27 PM  

ninjakirby: My folders are really disorganized, but I located one of the few I have.

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States


Thanks! Will look into it!
 
2009-03-02 07:52:40 PM  

scruffy1: H_is_for_Heretic: Should I try and schedule that or ambush?

Press conference ambush always seems like the best idea.

He's giving a speech and asks for questions and you pop it right in there. He will either give a non-answer or call security BUT it will get others thinking that perhaps he is hiding something.


No, I want the heartfelt, closed-door chat he promised. Already sent some emails, will call tomorrow, and failing that it seems he lives less than a mile and two streets over from me so maybe I can catch him mowing the lawn or something.
 
2009-03-02 08:03:36 PM  
Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


I guess they really are a fan of #9...
 
2009-03-02 08:07:48 PM  

robomonkster: And NAMBLA, can't leave them out.


Thanks all for participating. Just conducting a little troll experiment. Results will be in TFD when I'm finished.
 
2009-03-02 08:17:06 PM  

H_is_for_Heretic: No, I want the heartfelt, closed-door chat he promised. Already sent some emails, will call tomorrow, and failing that it seems he lives less than a mile and two streets over from me so maybe I can catch him mowing the lawn or something.


i'd be willing to kick in for the choco taco if you promise to report back after taking him up on his offer.
 
2009-03-02 08:38:40 PM  
Just came in to say that the American Psychological Association say the gays are perfectly good parents:

html-broke:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
 
2009-03-02 08:40:02 PM  
Next step: in an effort to keep the gays from marrying, Tennessee legislature proposes bill banning all unwed couples from marrying.
 
2009-03-02 08:42:27 PM  

sloppy shoes: "Blacks shouldn't go to the same schools because white people will be offended."


More like "Blacks shouldn't go to the same school as whites because they will face public ridicule by white students." It's farking ridiculous. fark these people, fark them hard.
 
2009-03-02 08:43:49 PM  
Wiki says, with citations, no less:
Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.[3]

The American Psychological Association states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):

there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."[1]

Similarly, Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007,[4] reaches this conclusion:

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Foster_parenting_and_adopt​ion
 
2009-03-02 08:45:47 PM  
I wouldn't have minded two hot lesbian Mom's as parents. I would have been so popular with the friends, and I bet it would have been a great move with chicks.
 
2009-03-02 08:47:14 PM  

H_is_for_Heretic: maybe I can catch him mowing the lawn or something.


better yet if you catch him soliciting and get pictures to show his great moral character.

Best of luck to you and please report back.
 
2009-03-02 08:48:25 PM  
The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.
 
2009-03-02 08:50:12 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.


. . .

Are you even a real person?
 
2009-03-02 08:51:00 PM  
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

A man who gained notoriety for stopping a gay man from adopting a girl under his foster care was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years in prison for molesting her.

Earl Kimmerling, pleaded guilty in January to four counts of molesting his foster daughter, now 9. He and his wife, Saundra, fought in 1998 to keep the girl from being adopted by Craig Peterson, a homosexual who had adopted the girl's three brothers.

At sentencing, Kimmerling tearfully apologized and pleaded for leniency. But Judge Frederick Spencer called Kimmerling's crime a betrayal of trust and ordered him to serve 40 years.

"It's hypocrisy at its highest level. He holds himself out to be a person of God, as a representative of the Christian community, and at the same time engaging in outrageous behavior," said Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings.

During the adoption fight, the Kimmerlings gained support from political figures including Anderson Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican state Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson and Woody Burton of Greenwood, whose proposal to ban gay adoptions failed in the Legislature.

The Kimmerlings eventually succeeded in adopting the girl, but in May 1998 Kimmerling was charged with 10 counts of sexual molestation after Saundra Kimmerling notified police.


republicansexoffenders.comView Full Size


Let's pray for him, shall we?

Maybe not.
 
2009-03-02 08:51:16 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.


Nope. No hidden agenda here. Huh-uh. Not at all.
 
2009-03-02 08:52:21 PM  
BTW, Kentucky is also considering a similar bill.

The two states I've spent most of my life in. . . How terribly disappointing.
 
2009-03-02 08:52:42 PM  
How hard is it to believe that the legislature doesn't want children to be adopted by a couple that has more of a chance of breaking up, since there's no legally binding relationship, than a married couple?

PS: let the gays marry
 
2009-03-02 08:52:58 PM  

Jackpot777:
Let's pray for him, shall we?

Maybe not.


I don't know whether to cry or laugh.
 
2009-03-02 08:53:03 PM  

burndtdan: sloppy shoes: To end gay sex, I propose ending all sex. We only need sex to make babies, therefore make all babies test tube babies. We can castrate men and women after we harvest the necessary sperm and eggs at 18- what I'm told is the prime age to mate. We don't need this sex; it is evil.

And may I say, ladies and gents, no more marriage troubles. No more bad sitcoms. Half of all stand up comedians will be forced to retire. No more angst riddled teenage suck-fests. We can live in a peaceful and scientific society. We can live moral lives; pure lives. Let me say this again: NO MORE SEX!!! It is pointless, evil, corrupt.

Utopia can be realized. Put down your leaves. We need them not any more to cover our privates, for the pure are going public! We can end sexism, rape, sodomy, heartbreak, impure morality, and lack of educational drive in one swift stroke. No More Sex. Republicans Unite!

you said "stroke"


Heh heh heh. Then he said ~"cans".
 
2009-03-02 08:53:55 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.


Sure you're not from Tennessee? You sound a lot like some people I know there.
 
2009-03-02 08:54:33 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: How hard is it to believe that the legislature doesn't want children to be adopted by a couple that has more of a chance of breaking up, since there's no legally binding relationship, than a married couple?

PS: let the gays marry


Because the adoption agents can make a far better judgment about that than the state senate. Hell, I'd be against this bill even if gays could marry.
 
2009-03-02 08:56:04 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.

Nope. No hidden agenda here. Huh-uh. Not at all.


Because you claim a hidden agenda means there is one?


Adult men who grew up in one-parent households are more likely to have been abused as children, according to a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Medicine. William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, reports his findings the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Bacause things like this play NO role in the decision. Just your "hidden agenda" theory.

"Children being raised by one parent are at a greater risk for many things as they grow up, including health risks such as poorly-controlled diabetes and asthma," said Holmes. "We now must add childhood sexual abuse to part of this risk picture."
 
2009-03-02 08:57:28 PM  

RemyDuron: Jackpot777:
Let's pray for him, shall we?

Maybe not.

I don't know whether to cry or laugh.


I choose option 3. Broom handle in the showers.

[image from pix.motivatedphotos.com too old to be available]

Now you can laugh.

/Broomrape = a type of plant.
 
2009-03-02 08:57:53 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.

Nope. No hidden agenda here. Huh-uh. Not at all.

Because you claim a hidden agenda means there is one?


Adult men who grew up in one-parent households are more likely to have been abused as children, according to a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Medicine. William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, reports his findings the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Bacause things like this play NO role in the decision. Just your "hidden agenda" theory.

"Children being raised by one parent are at a greater risk for many things as they grow up, including health risks such as poorly-controlled diabetes and asthma," said Holmes. "We now must add childhood sexual abuse to part of this risk picture."


So, although the bill bans all gays from adopting, it isn't offensive because it merely bans them implicitly?
 
2009-03-02 08:58:22 PM  
RemyDuron:
Because the adoption agents can make a far better judgment about that than the state senate. Hell, I'd be against this bill even if gays could marry.

Like small business-owners, CEOs and economists know how to stimulate the economy better than Nancy Pelosi?

Unfortunately, the law-makers make the laws. The people in the shiat just have to deal with the lawmakers decisions.
 
2009-03-02 08:58:54 PM  
And before Heroes starts, I'll just leave this here...

i296.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-03-02 08:59:13 PM  
So let me see if I got this.

We should keep children sheltered from anything remotely sexual, then when we get around to educating them we should leave out the part about birth control, then when that fails they can't have an abortion, but then the child gets put up for adoption it can't get adopted because the interested prospective parents are gay or single, then they get to grow up in a orphanage.
 
2009-03-02 08:59:55 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: Like small business-owners, CEOs and economists know how to stimulate the economy better than Nancy Pelosi?


Apparently not, have you seen the economy?
 
2009-03-02 09:02:07 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: Because the adoption agents can make a far better judgment about that than the state senate. Hell, I'd be against this bill even if gays could marry.


Actually, for a more prolonged reply, I'm not saying the government should have no role in these decisions. Rather, that it isn't something that needs to be directed in this detail from the highest level. If there was a crisis among adopted children due to unwed parents, maybe something like this should be considered, but there isn't.
 
2009-03-02 09:04:15 PM  
This is so stupid.

I was raised by a gay couple from when I was 14+. My father (biological) was a contributing member of society and had a stable relationship with the same guy for 7 years or something and they had a civil union. We had a house, we had dinner together, we were a "family". I know not all gay people are like this, but I would think the couples wanting to adopt would be in a similar financial/social position. I was never exposed to crazy gay orgies or party drugs because they were too old for that kind of lifestyle. This is just some religious agenda bullshiat they want to use to control their people. It's sickening. There are NORMAL and FUNCTIONAL gay people all around, why can't they open their eyes?
 
2009-03-02 09:04:53 PM  

ninjakirby: I'm not making this shiat up. Go find some conservative websites on this issue and read their studies. That is really and truly the strongest argument they can muster.


Why is it that people who are making shiat up always say that?
 
2009-03-02 09:05:46 PM  
Someone please give Tennessee some peanut butter.
 
2009-03-02 09:07:12 PM  
RemyDuron:

Actually, for a more prolonged reply, I'm not saying the government should have no role in these decisions. Rather, that it isn't something that needs to be directed in this detail from the highest level. If there was a crisis among adopted children due to unwed parents, maybe something like this should be considered, but there isn't.

You're right. I can never understand how a collection of people from all sorts of backgrounds make decisions on various subjects that affect us all like they're experts. I guess it's the drawback of living in a republic. (I know that's what lobbyists are for, for info on certain topics, but they're all being paid by completely self-serving entities.)

It's like mandatory sentencing for certain crimes. It just takes the decision away from the judge or jury.
 
2009-03-02 09:08:30 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.

Nope. No hidden agenda here. Huh-uh. Not at all.

Because you claim a hidden agenda means there is one?


Adult men who grew up in one-parent households are more likely to have been abused as children, according to a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Medicine. William C. Holmes, MD, MSCE, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, reports his findings the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Bacause things like this play NO role in the decision. Just your "hidden agenda" theory.

"Children being raised by one parent are at a greater risk for many things as they grow up, including health risks such as poorly-controlled diabetes and asthma," said Holmes. "We now must add childhood sexual abuse to part of this risk picture."


From the Tennesseean: "Rep. John J. DeBerry Jr., D-Memphis, and Sen. Paul Stanley, R-Memphis, introduced the bills in their respective chambers, but their reasons for reviving the debate are unclear.

Stanley did not respond to requests for comment, and DeBerry said there were aspects of his reasons for sponsoring the bill that he was unwilling to discuss with a reporter. DeBerry was also unwilling to say what sort of family structure he believes is best for children.

"If a member of the public would like to know my reasons, they can contact me, come into my office," he said. "We will shut the door, and I would be happy to share my reasons.""

That's not suspicious in the least. Nope. "I support this but I can't tell you why. Just know that it's not about the gays."

Also, the Family Action Council of Tennessee is lobbying for the legislation. You can guess their general platform.

Also: From The Tennesseean: "The Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth voted last week not to support the legislative effort to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting."
 
2009-03-02 09:09:37 PM  
I think gay and straight should be able to adopt. Kids need homes. Gay parents are as good and as bad as straight parents.

This law favor dual parent households, specifically NOT bringing sexual orientation into the equation.
 
2009-03-02 09:11:24 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I think gay and straight should be able to adopt. Kids need homes. Gay parents are as good and as bad as straight parents.

This law favor dual parent households, specifically NOT bringing sexual orientation into the equation.


This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.
 
2009-03-02 09:13:11 PM  

peterquince: That's not suspicious in the least. Nope. "I support this but I can't tell you why. Just know that it's not about the gays."

Also, the Family Action Council of Tennessee is lobbying for the legislation. You can guess their general platform.


You say it's a hidden agenda. I say it's about dual parent households. I have evidence this is what was said. You have hidden agendas and innuedos.

Why does it always have to be about gay vs. straight?
 
2009-03-02 09:14:40 PM  

hubiestubert: 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.


That one's true. I remember when I was an adolescent I started "experimenting" with tallness. Many of my friends were tall and I had tall people in my family. I thought I could just turn the tallness on or off, but eventually the tall lifestyle enveloped me completely. Oh God, God, make me short again *sobs*.
 
2009-03-02 09:15:42 PM  

peterquince: This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.


Please point our where it says that.
 
2009-03-02 09:17:51 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Adult men who grew up in one-parent households are more likely to have been abused as children,


correlation =/ causation

Other stats show a correlation between having a single parent and being poor and a correlation that shows children in a household that earns less than 15,000 a year is 22 times more likely to be abused than a child in a household that makes more than 30.

Most of societies problems draw their root in poverty. Blacks commit more crimes because more of them are in poverty etc. A single parent making more than 100k is likely to be a good parent whereas one making 15k may not be.
 
2009-03-02 09:17:53 PM  
Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.

Hawaii went though the gay marriage arguement about 12 years ago when the Hawaii Supreme Court baiscally struck down the ability of the state to deny gay marriage. On of the reasons the state put foward was the "for the children" argument that children of gay parents were somehow worse off. So the court basically said, "prove it."

Not only was the State unable to prove these children were worse off, but there were several studies that said children of gay parents actually did better than children straight parents.
 
2009-03-02 09:17:55 PM  
YEAH I bet they are anti abortion too. So all these babies that they want born can stay with people who will negect/abuse them rather than go to loving parents. Brilliant!
 
2009-03-02 09:19:15 PM  
I guess they'll just have to start putting children down after thirty days...like they do dogs and cats.
 
2009-03-02 09:19:50 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Why does it always have to be about gay vs. straight?


It's not always about gay vs. straight. But in this case, it is.

In this case legislation has been written that disproportionately harms gay people. That makes it discriminatory, regardless of intent.

That said, this legislation is being touted by extremely anti-gay organizations. That puts the argument into question. Especially considering that the legislation isn't just anti-single-people. If it were just anti-single-people, then they would have a provision allowing spousal-equivalents to adopt. Not just "married" people.
 
2009-03-02 09:20:06 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.

Please point our where it says that.


Any Straight couple CAN get married. Even ones that don't know or like eachother just for the purpose of having kids. Gay people (even in a loving realationship) can't do that.
 
2009-03-02 09:20:38 PM  
How far are we away from these "Marriage is for raising children" pyschos from annulling marriages that have no children.

According to them if you are married and don't have children your not in a "real" marriage.
 
2009-03-02 09:21:10 PM  
Gays, like me, come from heterosexual households.


/there should be a law.
 
2009-03-02 09:21:31 PM  
Lets just remember the type of neanderthal who is this worried about gays is the same person who can't put themselves into other people's shoes and look for motivation. They actually believe people wake up one day and choose to be gay. The gay ones among them live terrible lives of self-hatred because they have been convinced that they need to choose to fight themselves every day to be something they aren't. The straight ones among them don't even acknowledge the difference between what their urges are and what those of a gay person would be.

I think that is the part that annoys me the most, that so very many people can truly be so remedial that they don't understand that a guy who dreams of women choosing to abstain from men and stick with women isn't even remotely similar to that of the guy who dreams of men and is supposed to choose to like women.

I mean seriously, its not that complicated. Picture something you want and imagine how easy it is to choose to want that. Now picture something you are disgusted by and figure out how easy it is to choose to pass on that.

I don't like poop related sex. It is very, VERY easy for me not to fall into that dark brown (and sometimes green!) world of scheisse-filmen.
 
2009-03-02 09:21:51 PM  
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.
 
2009-03-02 09:22:32 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.

Please point our where it southern literacry tests says that were intended to keep black people from voting.


if only married people can adopt and only heterosexual people can get married, then only heterosexual people can adopt. that means gay people don't have the equal benefits (equal protection) under the law.
 
2009-03-02 09:22:58 PM  

Stay Cool Babylon: Have these people ever met a real live, stable gay couple? They may be stereotypes, but as they say, even stereotypes are grounded in some reality. The general level of education and economic success is higher. The child will likely be exposed to critical thinking and openness. And let's face it, their bedroom is going to look fabulous.

I lived in a very gay portion of the city for many years. Much of my socializing was with the gay couples on my block. I can't recount the number of dinner parties, etc., where one of the couple would eventually break down in tears if the subject of adoption came up.

What you're doing to these people...it's wrong.


I highlight the above because you hit on a point worth noting. The christian windbags who push this crap DO NOT view these people as people. They've totally pushed gays and lesbians into an almost sub-human status. It's absolutely pathetic.

The only difference between a straight person and a gay or lesbian person is that a homosexual likes someone with the same genetalia as themselves. Big f*****g deal. And considering that 99% of the LGBT people I've known or met in my life are among the nicest, smartest, hardest working people I've ever met; there is no way in Hell you can tell me that gay individuals (let alone couples) can't take care of a foster kid.

/rant
 
2009-03-02 09:23:36 PM  

ace in your face: 3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.

Please point our where it says that.

Any Straight couple CAN get married. Even ones that don't know or like eachother just for the purpose of having kids. Gay people (even in a loving realationship) can't do that.


That is true in Tennesse, but this piece of legislation does not address gay marriage. That is a whole seperate issue which can be addressed by proposing legislation, though it would most likely fail.

Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.
 
2009-03-02 09:25:10 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: That is true in Tennesse, but this piece of legislation does not address gay marriage. That is a whole seperate issue which can be addressed by proposing legislation, though it would most likely fail.

Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.


But that issue is at the heart of this one. By requiring marriage for adoption, it makes adoption totally out-of-bounds for gay people.

It's the combination of the two statutes that makes it invidious.
 
2009-03-02 09:25:36 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


Now, Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large US city where there's a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa, for an example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it; you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to God.

You know what, Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other
people, here in this trailer park.
 
2009-03-02 09:25:59 PM  
peterquince:
That said, this legislation is being touted by extremely anti-gay organizations. That puts the argument into question. Especially considering that the legislation isn't just anti-single-people. If it were just anti-single-people, then they would have a provision allowing spousal-equivalents to adopt. Not just "married" people.

As an observer of this thread, and after looking at your profile, which says:
Samsaran, December 28, 2008:
You know what Pete? You are, by far, the most effective advocate for Gay Rights I have ever encountered. You have actually, and this is hard to admit, caused me to reevaluate some of my positions on the subject. It just goes to show what reasoned, dispassionate and respectful debate can accomplish. Kudos.


I have to ask, if Washington State or Vermont or some typically liberal state proposed this law, with the same reasoning proposed by the TN legislature, would you still purport that this is an anti-gay proposition?
 
2009-03-02 09:26:33 PM  
Lets focus on the real issue:

WHY THE FARK do we want LESS children to be adopted?
 
2009-03-02 09:27:17 PM  

12349876: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Adult men who grew up in one-parent households are more likely to have been abused as children,

correlation =/ causation

Other stats show a correlation between having a single parent and being poor and a correlation that shows children in a household that earns less than 15,000 a year is 22 times more likely to be abused than a child in a household that makes more than 30.

Most of societies problems draw their root in poverty. Blacks commit more crimes because more of them are in poverty etc. A single parent making more than 100k is likely to be a good parent whereas one making 15k may not be.


This.

Again it comes down to how poor people are at fairly simple logic and reasoning.

Kids are more messed up when they come from single parent households? Not a surprise.

How many of those were single parents because one was in jail for a crime? ZOMG a third variable?!

How many of those lost a parent due to war/disease/murder? Zomg the variables!

How many of those have a single parent raising them because of a dead-beat parent resulting from a loveless marriage and therefore have at least one, if not two, ignorant morons for parents who don't put the well being of their child first?

I swear I explain correlation and causality to one or more coworkers at least 3 times a week.
 
2009-03-02 09:27:28 PM  
As a homosexual who will one day adopt children, I'm really getting...


...farking pissed off.

If you're going to be "pro-life", then you also need to figure out a means of caring for the resulting children. I'm perfectly willing to care for the mistakes of the heteros; I'm even looking forward to it.


/Add another state to the "states to never live in" list.
//My straight parents got divorced and raised me separately. Somehow, I still managed to grow up to be a successful, responsible person.
 
2009-03-02 09:29:01 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: That is true in Tennesse, but this piece of legislation does not address gay marriage. That is a whole seperate issue which can be addressed by proposing legislation, though it would most likely fail.

Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.

But that issue is at the heart of this one. By requiring marriage for adoption, it makes adoption totally out-of-bounds for gay people.

It's the combination of the two statutes that makes it invidious.


I'm sure single folk who want to adopt feel the same way, even the straight ones.

The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.
 
2009-03-02 09:31:43 PM  
InferiousX
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.


Not for the child, no.

The question is - keep aside the gay issue for a bit - if you had to give up your child for adoption would you prefer a married couple or heterosexual roommates?
 
2009-03-02 09:32:45 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: I have to ask, if Washington State or Vermont or some typically liberal state proposed this law, with the same reasoning proposed by the TN legislature, would you still purport that this is an anti-gay proposition?


That's a bit of a hard question, as I can't imagine a "typically liberal state" proposing such a law. That said, I would look to develop two conclusions.

First, and most important: under this legislation some (not all) straight people can adopt, while no (not some) gay people can adopt. That disproportionate result makes the legislation inappropriate unless there's some really good reason to enact it. For instance, Gay people raise unhealthy babies, which is nonsense according to the APA. So I would be opposed to this legislation in any state at any time.

Second, I would look at what group of people is advocating for the legislation. If it's the same people who are actively fighting marriage equality, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the employment non-discrimination act, etc., then I'll probably conclude that it's intentionally discriminatory.

At the end of the day, whether it's intentionally or obviously discriminatory or not, it's still discrimination.
 
2009-03-02 09:33:33 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: This law does not favor duel-parent households. It favors heterosexual households.

Please point our where it says that.


Yeah, this totally isn't about gays. And the Grandfather Clause/Literacy tests were just about making sure our electorate were educated and had roots!
 
2009-03-02 09:33:59 PM  
Because we all know that a wedding is a surefire guarantee that they'll be good parents.

/sarcasm.
 
2009-03-02 09:35:02 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I'm sure single folk who want to adopt feel the same way, even the straight ones.

The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.


Are you being deliberately obtuse here?

Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?
 
2009-03-02 09:35:59 PM  
There are 49 other states to live in so if Tennessee leadership is failing you- no matter what your particular issue is - farking move. Haul ass to someplace better and let the 'tards be even more retarded. Go somewhere else and build a better life for yourself.

It amazes me how many Americans take that very thing for granted.
 
2009-03-02 09:35:59 PM  
Fark the Confederacy.
 
2009-03-02 09:36:05 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: That is true in Tennesse, but this piece of legislation does not address gay marriage. That is a whole seperate issue which can be addressed by proposing legislation, though it would most likely fail.

Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.

But that issue is at the heart of this one. By requiring marriage for adoption, it makes adoption totally out-of-bounds for gay people.

It's the combination of the two statutes that makes it invidious.

I'm sure single folk who want to adopt feel the same way, even the straight ones.

The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.


This isn't about an individual. It's about a group of people. There is no reasonable way that any gay person could expect to adopt in Tennessee under this legislation. On the other hand, there IS a reasonable way that most straight people could expect to adopt in Tennessee under this legislation.

It's not possible to discriminate against an individual. In order to show discrimination, you have to show similarly situated people of another class. In this class sexual orientation.
 
2009-03-02 09:36:09 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: peterquince:
That said, this legislation is being touted by extremely anti-gay organizations. That puts the argument into question. Especially considering that the legislation isn't just anti-single-people. If it were just anti-single-people, then they would have a provision allowing spousal-equivalents to adopt. Not just "married" people.

As an observer of this thread, and after looking at your profile, which says:
Samsaran, December 28, 2008:
You know what Pete? You are, by far, the most effective advocate for Gay Rights I have ever encountered. You have actually, and this is hard to admit, caused me to reevaluate some of my positions on the subject. It just goes to show what reasoned, dispassionate and respectful debate can accomplish. Kudos.

I have to ask, if Washington State or Vermont or some typically liberal state proposed this law, with the same reasoning proposed by the TN legislature, would you still purport that this is an anti-gay proposition?


Those states would never propose this because they are PRO FINDING CHILDREN HOMES.

/Gosh... liberal states and their "values" keeping kids out of orphanages
 
2009-03-02 09:36:10 PM  

sloppy shoes: Utopia can be realized. Put down your leaves. We need them not any more to cover our privates, for the pure are going public! We can end sexism, rape, sodomy, heartbreak, impure morality, and lack of educational drive in one swift stroke. No More Sex. Republicans Unite!


It's been a long time since I read the book, and I didn't really enjoy it either, but didn't they try this in Brave New World? And everyone had more sex as a result?

/and yes, I know you were being sarcastic
 
2009-03-02 09:36:30 PM  

RemyDuron: Yeah, this totally isn't about gays.


The single heteros who are now unable to adopt would completely agree with you.
 
2009-03-02 09:37:48 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: RemyDuron: Yeah, this totally isn't about gays.

The single heteros who are now would be unable to adopt would completely agree with you.


FTFY
 
2009-03-02 09:38:26 PM  

bwesb: There are 49 other states to live in so if Tennessee leadership is failing you- no matter what your particular issue is - farking move. Haul ass to someplace better and let the 'tards be even more retarded. Go somewhere else and build a better life for yourself.

It amazes me how many Americans take that very thing for granted.


Yea, and if folks in the north didn't like folks in the south having slaves, they should have just stayed in the north. I'm sorry, but giving up ground to bigots every time they try to take over is not the answer. You give up enough states that way and the next thing you know they make their viewpoints a federal issue.
 
2009-03-02 09:38:55 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: RemyDuron: Yeah, this totally isn't about gays.

The single heteros who are now unable to adopt would completely agree with you.


They can get a marriage of convenience. Gays have no such option.
 
2009-03-02 09:39:18 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: RemyDuron: Yeah, this totally isn't about gays.

The single heteros who are now unable to adopt would completely agree with you.


As a single hetero living in Kentucky, considering a similar law, I can say that we are simply collateral damage in this battle. This is about gays, just like the literacy tests were about preventing black people from voting.
 
2009-03-02 09:39:28 PM  

Smackledorfer: Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?


I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.

peterquince: On the other hand, there IS a reasonable way that most straight people could expect to adopt in Tennessee under this legislation.


Not the single ones anymore. That is what this law specifically designates.
 
2009-03-02 09:40:32 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: RemyDuron: Yeah, this totally isn't about gays.

The single heteros who are now would be unable to adopt would completely agree with you.

FTFY


Quite true, thanks. Maybe it won't pass, and we can go back to the 500 budget threads. Those are always a hoot.
 
2009-03-02 09:41:04 PM  

mcoctopus: InferiousX
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.

Not for the child, no.

The question is - keep aside the gay issue for a bit - if you had to give up your child for adoption would you prefer a married couple or heterosexual roommates?


In a perfect world, we know that because the one couple is married that they will make better children. In the real world, I really don't have a clue whether the unmarried couple is a more loving set of parents than the married couple.
 
2009-03-02 09:41:46 PM  
thamike 2009-03-02 05:30:45 PM This is just ridiculous.
=================================

Arkansas already did it.

/Yes, it was ridiculous.
 
2009-03-02 09:42:04 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.


That's farking ridiculous and you should know better. It's Grandfather Clause style legislation.
 
2009-03-02 09:42:38 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?

I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.


a mirror, you should get one.

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: On the other hand, there IS a reasonable way that most straight people could expect to adopt in Tennessee under this legislation.

Not the single ones anymore. That is what this law specifically designates.


Imagine a heterosexual couple. They've been together for five years and want to adopt. They can't cause they're not married. They have the (reasonable if not totally logical) option of getting married in order to adopt. So they do and they can adopt.

Now imagine a gay couple. They've been together for five years and want to adopt. They can't cause they're not married. They have no other option. They just have to go childless.
 
2009-03-02 09:43:33 PM  

RemyDuron: That's farking ridiculous and you should know better


Ridiculous? There is an anti-gay sentiment in here?
 
2009-03-02 09:44:38 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Ridiculous? There is an anti-gay sentiment in here?


Dude, you've spouting AFA talking points.
 
2009-03-02 09:44:51 PM  
peterquince:

At the end of the day, whether it's intentionally or obviously discriminatory or not, it's still discrimination.

I see why you think that in consideration of your points, and why - no offense - you may have a bias for thinking things like that, and you may be completely right. This may be anti-gay legislation.

BUT, the legislators who agree with this may actually be considering the well-being of a child, the fact that there is no legally binding relationship, and (and I really hate to make the comparisson) that at some point there may be a "who gets the dog?" moment.

Since it discriminates against both homo and heterosexual couples, in my efforts to be objective, I cannot classify this as 'anti-gay' legislation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not just the gay community that will feel the effects of this legislation.
 
2009-03-02 09:45:42 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?

I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.


Hey, if you are the one in a million person who isn't pushing an anti-gay agenda under a pretext of something else, and actually supports that something else, then I apologize. This just looks too much like the civil union vs. marriage stuff where you can't find a single person who will admit they are against gays, but one option isn't equal, and the other is, and they just happen to be in favor of the option that is worse for queers.
 
2009-03-02 09:47:47 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?

I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.

a mirror, you should get one.

So know you are insinuating I'm anti gay?

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: On the other hand, there IS a reasonable way that most straight people could expect to adopt in Tennessee under this legislation.

Not the single ones anymore. That is what this law specifically designates.

Imagine a heterosexual couple. They've been together for five years and want to adopt. They can't cause they're not married. They have the (reasonable if not totally logical) option of getting married in order to adopt. So they do and they can adopt.

Now imagine a gay couple. They've been together for five years and want to adopt. They can't cause they're not married. They have no other option. They just have to go childless.


If this legislation was for a vote on gay marriage, I'd vote for it to be perfectly legal. The fact is, it's not. It discriminates specifically against single households, and yes by proxy, gays who are unable to wed. Again, that issue should be one up for a vote, ya know....to possibly change it?
 
2009-03-02 09:48:12 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: peterquince:

At the end of the day, whether it's intentionally or obviously discriminatory or not, it's still discrimination.

I see why you think that in consideration of your points, and why - no offense - you may have a bias for thinking things like that, and you may be completely right. This may be anti-gay legislation.

BUT, the legislators who agree with this may actually be considering the well-being of a child, the fact that there is no legally binding relationship, and (and I really hate to make the comparisson) that at some point there may be a "who gets the dog?" moment.

Since it discriminates against both homo and heterosexual couples, in my efforts to be objective, I cannot classify this as 'anti-gay' legislation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not just the gay community that will feel the effects of this legislation.


Sure, and it wasn't just black people that felt the effects of literacy tests.

This doesn't discriminate equally between straight and gay couples. Do you see that particular point? That gay people are hindered more by this (on the whole) than straight people?
 
2009-03-02 09:48:14 PM  

InferiousX: Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.


"You can't have these rights because we're busy" is not an acceptable excuse.
 
2009-03-02 09:49:02 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Ridiculous? There is an anti-gay sentiment in here?

Dude, you've spouting AFA talking points.


By asking for a vote to allow gays to marry? It's clear you are confused.
 
2009-03-02 09:50:45 PM  

mcoctopus: InferiousX
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.

Not for the child, no.

The question is - keep aside the gay issue for a bit - if you had to give up your child for adoption would you prefer a married couple or heterosexual roommates?


I would want my children to wind up with whoever would provide the best home, upbringing, and opportunities for them.
My parents were straight and married. Then they entered into a nasty divorce, stopped speaking to each other entirely, and I got to spend most of my childhood playing mediator. Marriage is not some magical thing that turns adults into better parents. Personal qualities, like dedication, responsibility, and kindness make a good parent.
 
2009-03-02 09:50:46 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: Since it discriminates against both homo and heterosexual couples, in my efforts to be objective, I cannot classify this as 'anti-gay' legislation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not just the gay community that will feel the effects of this legislation.


I think you are wrong. It doesn't discriminate equally. You can't say that this hurts people X by 2, and people Y by 4, but it hurts them both, so its ok. Then the next law can help people X by 4, and help people Y by 2. People X are now up by 2, and people Y are now negative two.

Write a bunch of laws like this, and you have an extremely unequal situation. So while you are right that the lawmakers could have the best of intentions, it is still a valid point to say that the law is discriminatory in nature.
 
2009-03-02 09:52:07 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: If this legislation was for a vote on gay marriage, I'd vote for it to be perfectly legal. The fact is, it's not. It discriminates specifically against single households, and yes by proxy, gays who are unable to wed. Again, that issue should be one up for a vote, ya know....to possibly change it?


That may be. But since gay marriage isn't on the table, this legislation harms gays more than straights. And that's unacceptable.
 
2009-03-02 09:54:46 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: Since it discriminates against both homo and heterosexual couples, in my efforts to be objective, I cannot classify this as 'anti-gay' legislation.


It's not anti-gay, it is plain old stupid. If Republicans care about life, they should be committed to getting all of our orphans in loving homes, regardless of what people are in that home.
 
2009-03-02 09:55:30 PM  
Perverts and abusers come in gay and straight, single and married.

So do unbelievably nice, moral, stable people who would make fantastic parents.
 
2009-03-02 09:56:22 PM  
Ah yes. The nuclear option.

Arkansas did this exact same thing back in November... most people didn't hear about it because they were too busy having Obamagasms.
 
2009-03-02 09:57:53 PM  

xtex: Ah yes. The nuclear option.

Arkansas did this exact same thing back in November... most people didn't hear about it because they were too busy having Obamagasms.



Obamagasms?
img9.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-03-02 09:59:04 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The bill was introduced without reference to sexual orientation of adoptive parents.


FAILmitter.


3_Butt_Cheeks: Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.


Not to mention your implicit assumption that all un-married people are "single." As I pointed out earlier, gay people in permanent relationships are "single" under legislation of this type, even though in reality they're clearly not.

Your assumption is that the word marriage denotes some magical quality. And that because gays can't get married, they shouldn't be able to raise kids.
 
2009-03-02 09:59:56 PM  
peterquince:

Sure, and it wasn't just black people that felt the effects of literacy tests.

This doesn't discriminate equally between straight and gay couples. Do you see that particular point? That gay people are hindered more by this (on the whole) than straight people?


Legally: just because a law has a discriminatory effect more-so on one class of persons than another doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional (Con Law, several cases)

Your point: This link definitely supports your position: Link

Me: it makes sense to me that a government, arbiters of the laws that oversee the best interests of the children, would want to ensure that the parents - the 2 people adopting the child - are legally committed to one another

It sucks, and maybe it is based for some on discrimination, but the idea appears to have legal legitimacy. Again, it's "what's in the children's best interests", which means legally committed couples.

It does suck that it adversly affects the gay community.
 
2009-03-02 10:01:29 PM  

xtex: Arkansas did this exact same thing back in November... most people didn't hear about it because they were too busy having Obamagasms.


Actually we were preoccupied having our rights taken from us in California in another instance of anti-gay marriage legislation that didn't talk about gay people.
 
2009-03-02 10:02:33 PM  

peterquince: Not to mention your implicit assumption that all un-married people are "single."


As far as this proposed legislation is concerned, unmarried is considered "single", in the effect they would be unable to adopt.

peterquince: Your assumption is that the word marriage denotes some magical quality.


If magical quality means if this passes only they could adopt and not "unmarried" people, then sure. Call it magical.

peterquince: And that because gays can't get married, they shouldn't be able to raise kids.


I have never agreed or supported this stance in any regard. I'm the one advocating a vote to allow gay marriage.
 
2009-03-02 10:03:45 PM  
Smackledorfer:

I think you are wrong. It doesn't discriminate equally. You can't say that this hurts people X by 2, and people Y by 4, but it hurts them both, so its ok. Then the next law can help people X by 4, and help people Y by 2. People X are now up by 2, and people Y are now negative two.

Write a bunch of laws like this, and you have an extremely unequal situation. So while you are right that the lawmakers could have the best of intentions, it is still a valid point to say that the law is discriminatory in nature.


But what about this: Link

Are you saying we should have a flat tax because a progressive tax is discriminatory?
 
2009-03-02 10:03:45 PM  
Smackledorfer 2009-03-02 09:38:26 PM

Yea, and if folks in the north didn't like folks in the south having slaves, they should have just stayed in the north. I'm sorry, but giving up ground to bigots every time they try to take over is not the answer. You give up enough states that way and the next thing you know they make their viewpoints a federal issue.


Normally, I'd agree. However, I also think that if left alone the bigots will start to turn on themselves.
 
2009-03-02 10:05:08 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: peterquince:

Sure, and it wasn't just black people that felt the effects of literacy tests.

This doesn't discriminate equally between straight and gay couples. Do you see that particular point? That gay people are hindered more by this (on the whole) than straight people?

Legally: just because a law has a discriminatory effect more-so on one class of persons than another doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional (Con Law, several cases)

Your point: This link definitely supports your position: Link

Me: it makes sense to me that a government, arbiters of the laws that oversee the best interests of the children, would want to ensure that the parents - the 2 people adopting the child - are legally committed to one another

It sucks, and maybe it is based for some on discrimination, but the idea appears to have legal legitimacy. Again, it's "what's in the children's best interests", which means legally committed couples.

It does suck that it adversly affects the gay community.


Then there needs to be a follow-up law requiring more difficult divorce proceedings for couples with children.
Marriage != indivisible bond.


/My father has been married three times, and has children from each marriage.
//He's a prize.
 
2009-03-02 10:05:22 PM  

Stay Cool Babylon: where one of the couple would eventually break down in tears if the subject of adoption came up.


I guess that is one way to tell which one is the "woman" half of the relationship.
 
2009-03-02 10:05:57 PM  
ace in your face:

/Gosh... liberal states and their "values" keeping kids out of orphanages

You are good at sarcasm.
 
2009-03-02 10:08:13 PM  
One day religious freakazoids will keep their noses in their churches and out of dictating their dogma to the rest of us.
 
2009-03-02 10:08:53 PM  

RemyDuron: 3_Butt_Cheeks: I haven't seen any anti-gay people in here. Just people who think the law is aimed at gays specifically, and those who do not.

That's farking ridiculous and you should know better. It's Grandfather Clause style legislation.


My grandfather is not gay. He's dead. That's just sick.
 
2009-03-02 10:09:00 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: peterquince:

Sure, and it wasn't just black people that felt the effects of literacy tests.

This doesn't discriminate equally between straight and gay couples. Do you see that particular point? That gay people are hindered more by this (on the whole) than straight people?

Legally: just because a law has a discriminatory effect more-so on one class of persons than another doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional (Con Law, several cases)

Your point: This link definitely supports your position: Link

Me: it makes sense to me that a government, arbiters of the laws that oversee the best interests of the children, would want to ensure that the parents - the 2 people adopting the child - are legally committed to one another

It sucks, and maybe it is based for some on discrimination, but the idea appears to have legal legitimacy. Again, it's "what's in the children's best interests", which means legally committed couples.

It does suck that it adversly affects the gay community.


While you're right that not every law that has a disparate effect on a class is necessarily unconstitutional, there's a strong correlation. This is a class that is more and more gaining stricter scrutiny. Federally we get something slightly more than rational basis (much like gender-based discrimination).

And it's a class that certainly qualifies for strict scrutiny under the Carolene Products test for "discrete and insular minority."

But that's why I argue that it's inappropriate or unacceptable rather than unconstitutional.

Also: no reasonable person could possibly believe that letting a child waste away as a ward of the state is better than being placed in a home selected by qualified professionals. Especially when every organization connected to the question is fighting against it.

I think we're looking at a case similar to Romer v. Evans.
 
2009-03-02 10:11:14 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I have never agreed or supported this stance in any regard. I'm the one advocating a vote to allow gay marriage.


Why?

Seriously read over what you just posted... "advocating a vote to allow gay marriage."

Why must they be allowed by votes and simply not allowed as a right? It's noble and all that you feel that they should be allowed to be married but obtuse all the same in which you should feel that the people should decide whether they should be given the same right. That in itself is not equality, instead you are designating them as a second class people that require the permission of the privileged in order for them to get married, something that is allowed to pretty much all heterosexual couples.
 
2009-03-02 10:12:24 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: But what about this: Link

Are you saying we should have a flat tax because a progressive tax is discriminatory?


1 - Rich people are not a protected class, nor have they ever been.
2 - Even if they were, there is a compelling governmental interest in keeping the progressive tax, so your argument holds no constitutional muster.
3 - Let's keep it to the issue at hand.
 
2009-03-02 10:15:03 PM  
actually, i'm taking off. have a good night, all.
 
2009-03-02 10:15:16 PM  

Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: I'm sure single folk who want to adopt feel the same way, even the straight ones.

The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here?

Why can't people who are anti-gay just come right out and say it, make their arguments openly and honesty, and deal with the consequences?


I think the 3rd butt cheek is actually his head.
 
2009-03-02 10:18:05 PM  

scruffy1: Why must they be allowed by votes and simply not allowed as a right? It's noble and all that you feel that they should be allowed to be married but obtuse all the same in which you should feel that the people should decide whether they should be given the same right.


Why? It's because it's the LAW. They are currently not ALLOWED by function of law to marry. I didn't make the rules. It's obtuse to believe anything else.

Like a vote to DISALLOW single people from adopting. It would be part of the LAW. Your arguement on semantics is a little baffling here.

scruffy1: instead you are designating them as a second class people that require the permission of the privileged in order for them to get married, something that is allowed to pretty much all heterosexual couples.


If you have read any of my previous posts and can suggest I think gays are "second hand citizens", you are either ignorant, or attempting to start some kind of little flamewar. Either way, not interested.
 
2009-03-02 10:21:01 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.


I don't necessarily disagree with you but even if gay marriage was allowed in my state - my boyfriend and I would not get married. Why? Because the feds don't recognize it leaving you in a strange legal limbo (e.g. taxes). Until its recognized at the federal level - its worthless.
 
2009-03-02 10:21:23 PM  

valencia: This is so stupid.

I was raised by a gay couple from when I was 14+. My father (biological) was a contributing member of society and had a stable relationship with the same guy for 7 years or something and they had a civil union. We had a house, we had dinner together, we were a "family". I know not all gay people are like this, but I would think the couples wanting to adopt would be in a similar financial/social position. I was never exposed to crazy gay orgies or party drugs because they were too old for that kind of lifestyle. This is just some religious agenda bullshiat they want to use to control their people. It's sickening. There are NORMAL and FUNCTIONAL gay people all around, why can't they open their eyes?


They have opened their eyes. Those are the ones they're really afraid of. The ones who might normalize homosexuality.

You have to understand that the religious mindset is %100 bigotry. They don't care if gay couples can be good parents. They just want to discriminate against gay people because they hate gay people. No other reason.
 
2009-03-02 10:22:05 PM  

ace in your face: They can get a marriage of convenience. Gays have no such option.


If you are talking about 'marriage of convenience' - us gays have been doing that for centuries.
 
2009-03-02 10:22:14 PM  
peterquince:

Also: no reasonable person could possibly believe that letting a child waste away as a ward of the state is better than being placed in a home selected by qualified professionals. Especially when every organization connected to the question is fighting against it.

You have completely valid points (although to my knowledge sexual orientation at most would only get intermediate-scrutiny if put on the same level as gender).

I think it's great to put children in homes with people who want to love them. And maybe this law has a discriminatory basis and effect, but to give legal rights over a child to two individuals who aren't legally married does seem like a potentially litigious situation.

I gotta go, so I'll end by saying:
- gays should be allowed to married
- children should be given homes where people love them
- but there seems to be some legal and objective reasonableness to this law

Either there needs to be a US const. amendment defining marriage to include 2 dudes or 2 chicks, or there has to be a SCOTUS decision saying it's discrimination not to allow it, unconstitutional, and therefore legal.

The former alternative is almost impossible, hence the small number of amendments; the latter, I actually believe, could go either way.

Now with Obama in office, the country swept up with liberalism because of the economic situation, Kennedy may go left on this one.

I know this is personal to you so I hope it all ends like you want it.

Later
 
2009-03-02 10:23:20 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: scruffy1: Why must they be allowed by votes and simply not allowed as a right? It's noble and all that you feel that they should be allowed to be married but obtuse all the same in which you should feel that the people should decide whether they should be given the same right.

Why? It's because it's the LAW. They are currently not ALLOWED by function of law to marry. I didn't make the rules. It's obtuse to believe anything else.

Like a vote to DISALLOW single people from adopting. It would be part of the LAW. Your arguement on semantics is a little baffling here.


FALSE.

The supreme law of the land is that we all of the right to do anything unless there is a sufficiently good reason to keep me from doing it. You need to learn more about the Constitution. Laws don't create rights. Laws can only take them away. This particular right needs a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in order to take it away legitimately. And there isn't one.

scruffy1: instead you are designating them as a second class people that require the permission of the privileged in order for them to get married, something that is allowed to pretty much all heterosexual couples.

If you have read any of my previous posts and can suggest I think gays are "second hand citizens", you are either ignorant, or attempting to start some kind of little flamewar. Either way, not interested.


Or perhaps you are lying to yourself. By suggesting it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting, you're suggesting we aren't worthy of the same rights or responsibilities of straight people. That's second-class citizenship.

As my grandmother used to say, if a bunch of people tell you you stink, maybe you should just take a shower.
 
2009-03-02 10:25:23 PM  
ckccfa
mcoctopus: InferiousX
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.

Not for the child, no.

The question is - keep aside the gay issue for a bit - if you had to give up your child for adoption would you prefer a married couple or heterosexual roommates?

I would want my children to wind up with whoever would provide the best home, upbringing, and opportunities for them.
My parents were straight and married. Then they entered into a nasty divorce, stopped speaking to each other entirely, and I got to spend most of my childhood playing mediator. Marriage is not some magical thing that turns adults into better parents. Personal qualities, like dedication, responsibility, and kindness make a good parent.


I should have prefixed my question with "all other factors being equal or nearly equal". I dont think feuding roommates or divorcing couples would be looking to adopt.

Your preference then (and Smackledorfer's), can I say, is for married heterosexual couples. How can an entity can then not institute a similar policy? How can I, as a state, give a child to an unmarried couple today, when there's a possibility of it being adopted by a married couple tomorrow? And how do a state decide how long to wait for a married couple before accepting applications from other couples.

These questions are easy if the parent is an individual but they are very tough questions if the parent is an entity.
 
2009-03-02 10:25:34 PM  

peterquince: By suggesting it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting, you're suggesting we aren't worthy of the same rights or responsibilities of straight people. That's second-class citizenship.


Please please please show me where I said it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting. Are you trying to find someone to show outrage with? I'll wait and see if you can produce this, or are big enough to admit you made that up.
 
2009-03-02 10:28:38 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: By suggesting it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting, you're suggesting we aren't worthy of the same rights or responsibilities of straight people. That's second-class citizenship.

Please please please show me where I said it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting. Are you trying to find someone to show outrage with? I'll wait and see if you can produce this, or are big enough to admit you made that up.


You've said (1) that the legislation is reasonable even though (2) the legislation keeps all gays from adopting children, which means that (3) it's reasonable to keep all gays from adopting.

Your arguments need work. Where do you go to school?
 
2009-03-02 10:28:41 PM  

peterquince: ILoveBeer3000: But what about this: Link

Are you saying we should have a flat tax because a progressive tax is discriminatory?

1 - Rich people are not a protected class, nor have they ever been.
2 - Even if they were, there is a compelling governmental interest in keeping the progressive tax, so your argument holds no constitutional muster.
3 - Let's keep it to the issue at hand.


I was trying to leave but:
- I wasn't talking to you in this comment
- I was making a point about discriminatory effects in response to that persons point
- I was talking constitution with you, not the person i was responding to
 
2009-03-02 10:31:15 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: I was trying to leave but:
- I wasn't talking to you in this comment
- I was making a point about discriminatory effects in response to that persons point
- I was talking constitution with you, not the person i was responding to


- Regardless of who you were talking to, your points were meritless.
- I was the one making the discriminatory effects arguments anyway.
- Discrimination and scrutiny go together like peas and carrots.
- The Constitution is ALWAYS applicable.
 
2009-03-02 10:32:44 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Please please please show me where I said it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting.


You've said that a law requiring parents to be married to adopt is reasonable. Gays cannot marry in Tennessee. Therefore, you've said that it's reasonable to prevent gay couples from adopting in Tennessee.
 
2009-03-02 10:34:02 PM  

peterquince: 3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: By suggesting it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting, you're suggesting we aren't worthy of the same rights or responsibilities of straight people. That's second-class citizenship.

Please please please show me where I said it's reasonable to keep gays from adopting. Are you trying to find someone to show outrage with? I'll wait and see if you can produce this, or are big enough to admit you made that up.

You've said (1) that the legislation is reasonable even though (2) the legislation keeps all gays from adopting children, which means that (3) it's reasonable to keep all gays from adopting.

Your arguments need work. Where do you go to school?


Again, please show where I said that. Of course, you couldn't. You confused me saying this proposed law was aimed at single people, and does not specifically target gays. It effects them by default, as a result of not being able to marry, which at SEVERAL times pointed out I would like to see changed.

Here's a pro tip for ya....when trying to attack someone about being anti-gay, be sure you're not ignorant enough to attack a pro-gay rights/gay marriage advocate. It's make everything else you try to point out moot.
 
2009-03-02 10:35:30 PM  
RemyDuron: Because the adoption agents can make a far better judgment about that than the state senate. Hell, I'd be against this bill even if gays could marry.
=========================

Yup.
 
2009-03-02 10:35:42 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Here's a pro tip for ya....when trying to attack someone about being anti-gay, be sure you're not ignorant enough to attack a pro-gay rights/gay marriage advocate. It's make everything else you try to point out moot.


Alright man. Here's a pro-tip for you. When you're trying to claim you're a gay rights advocate, make sure you're actually advocating for gay rights.

'night buddy.
 
2009-03-02 10:35:49 PM  
peterquince:
- Regardless of who you were talking to, your points were meritless.
- I was the one making the discriminatory effects arguments anyway.
- Discrimination and scrutiny go together like peas and carrots.
- The Constitution is ALWAYS applicable.


Wow, for a second I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.
 
2009-03-02 10:36:18 PM  

Mithiwithi: You've said that a law requiring parents to be married to adopt is reasonable.


Again, please quote where I said that. Anyone?

I said, yet again, that it was aimed at single people not being able to adopt, and that I DIDN'T THINK it was a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Reading comprehension dude.
 
2009-03-02 10:37:59 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: Wow, for a second I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.


when you're advocating against my right to do something, there's no such thing.
 
2009-03-02 10:38:02 PM  

ILoveBeer3000: peterquince:
- Regardless of who you were talking to, your points were meritless.
- I was the one making the discriminatory effects arguments anyway.
- Discrimination and scrutiny go together like peas and carrots.
- The Constitution is ALWAYS applicable.

Wow, for a second I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.


He's confused, angry, and obviously has trouble with the english language. Oh, and appaently is anti-gay too. Didn't see that one coming.
 
2009-03-02 10:38:15 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Mithiwithi: You've said that a law requiring parents to be married to adopt is reasonable.

Again, please quote where I said that. Anyone?

I said, yet again, that it was aimed at single people not being able to adopt, and that I DIDN'T THINK it was a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Reading comprehension dude.


I assert that any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 is a child molester. Would you agree that I have not just called you a child molester?
 
2009-03-02 10:39:22 PM  

peterquince: ILoveBeer3000: Wow, for a second I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.

when you're advocating against my right to do something, there's no such thing.


I'll rephrase..."when you're advocating against my right to do something specifically because i'm gay, there's no such thing.

/sorry for any confusion
 
2009-03-02 10:40:23 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: ...Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.


Which is why Obama has stated he opposes bans to same-sex marriage and spoke out in opposition to Prop 8. /massive eyeroll
 
2009-03-02 10:40:53 PM  

Mithiwithi: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Mithiwithi: You've said that a law requiring parents to be married to adopt is reasonable.

Again, please quote where I said that. Anyone?

I said, yet again, that it was aimed at single people not being able to adopt, and that I DIDN'T THINK it was a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Reading comprehension dude.

I assert that any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 is a child molester. Would you agree that I have not just called you a child molester?


Right, so in other words, you can't quote anywhere where I said this legislation is reasonable.

When I read your last post, I had to scratch my balls. Therefore, you are a scrotum irritant.
 
2009-03-02 10:42:55 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: ...The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.


That was the policy on interracial marriage in this country until the '60s. Several states banned it outright until the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned them. That is what should and will happen with gay couples.
 
2009-03-02 10:43:19 PM  
I submit that if the intention of your bill is cloaked and hidden in actual wording that accomplishes something grander or much different (grander meaning size, not relative worth), then you have no farking reason to be a legislator, and you should be censured, reprimanded, demerited, and then receive a boisterous kick to the batter/baby factory.

This is every bit as despicable as ballot initiatives that use septuple negatives and other chicanery to make people vote opposite the way they would if it was stated clearly.
 
2009-03-02 10:43:44 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Right, so in other words, you can't quote anywhere where I said this legislation is reasonable.


Well, as long as we agree this legislation is unreasonable, I won't be picky about what other silly hairs you want to split about it.
 
2009-03-02 10:44:00 PM  

WFern: 3_Butt_Cheeks: ...Most states don't allow gay marriage, even this administration opposes it.

Which is why Obama has stated he opposes bans to same-sex marriage and spoke out in opposition to Prop 8. /massive eyeroll


Senator Obama believes that marriage is between a man and a women. However, he has clearly stated that he supports the states making their own decisions regarding same sex couples. He has also opposes constituional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.


Barack Obama Quotes on Same Sex Marriage: "On this issue, I have been at the forefront of any of the presidential candidates." [from the Logo presidential debate]


Barack Obama Quotes opposing Same Sex Marriage: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." [ from the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire]

Barack Obama Quotes opposing Same Sex Marriage: "This is an issue that I think helps to describe who we are...[Marriage] connotes to so many people a religious and not just civil element, and that includes me." [source: cnn]

Yea, MASSIVE EYEROLL.
 
2009-03-02 10:45:31 PM  

Mithiwithi: Well, as long as we agree this legislation is unreasonable


I do. I said it before...everyone who is an able parent, straight or gay, single or married, should be able to adopt. Can I make it any clearer?
 
2009-03-02 10:46:15 PM  

heinekenftw: Because we all know that a wedding is a surefire guarantee that they'll be good parents.

/sarcasm.


judiciaryreport.comView Full Size


"Let's be all responsible and have kids now!"

topsocialite.comView Full Size


/adding to the sarcasm.

//anyone claiming straight marriage is always best for raising kids should be answered with the question: K-Fed or Britney?
 
2009-03-02 10:46:40 PM  

WFern: 3_Butt_Cheeks: ...The gay marriage issue should come up for a vote in all 50 states, and let the elections in each state decide.

That was the policy on interracial marriage in this country until the '60s. Several states banned it outright until the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned them. That is what should and will happen with gay couples.


Marriage is every bit a fiscal and power-of-attorney-ish decision as much as it is a 'love' or 'religious' decision.

I personally think polygamy should be legal as well. Even devil's threesomes. Even 'group' marriages, with 5 Jacks and 6 Janets. Who am I to say no? For insurance purposes, an employee can designate 1 (one) spouse and indiscriminately use $x of coverage per year for children, or something.
 
2009-03-02 10:47:00 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I do. I said it before...everyone who is an able parent, straight or gay, single or married, should be able to adopt. Can I make it any clearer?


Actually, there is one last thing you can clarify. If I were to pass a law banning any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 from adopting, would you agree that such a law was targeted at you?
 
2009-03-02 10:52:01 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: ninjakirby: I'm not making this shiat up. Go find some conservative websites on this issue and read their studies. That is really and truly the strongest argument they can muster.

Why is it that people who are making shiat up always say that?


Right sorry, I just made this all up. You caught me.
 
2009-03-02 10:52:14 PM  

Mithiwithi: 3_Butt_Cheeks: I do. I said it before...everyone who is an able parent, straight or gay, single or married, should be able to adopt. Can I make it any clearer?

Actually, there is one last thing you can clarify. If I were to pass a law banning any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 from adopting, would you agree that such a law was targeted at you?


If you care to clarify your obession with Fark account creation date?
 
2009-03-02 10:53:32 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Mithiwithi: Actually, there is one last thing you can clarify. If I were to pass a law banning any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 from adopting, would you agree that such a law was targeted at you?

If you care to clarify your obession with Fark account creation date?


Well, it happens to be yours. But that's a coincidence. Not targeted at you, right? Right?
 
2009-03-02 10:57:05 PM  

mcoctopus: ckccfa
mcoctopus: InferiousX
Let me ask a speculative question:

Let's just say that your personal belief is that gay people have no business raising kids.

I'm not even going to argue that point, let's just say we agree to disagree.

With all of the bullshiat coming down on us in the world at the present moment, is gay people getting married or adopting kids really a number one concern or even a top 20 concern? Me thinks there are more pressing matters at hand.

Not for the child, no.

The question is - keep aside the gay issue for a bit - if you had to give up your child for adoption would you prefer a married couple or heterosexual roommates?

I would want my children to wind up with whoever would provide the best home, upbringing, and opportunities for them.
My parents were straight and married. Then they entered into a nasty divorce, stopped speaking to each other entirely, and I got to spend most of my childhood playing mediator. Marriage is not some magical thing that turns adults into better parents. Personal qualities, like dedication, responsibility, and kindness make a good parent.

I should have prefixed my question with "all other factors being equal or nearly equal". I dont think feuding roommates or divorcing couples would be looking to adopt.

Your preference then (and Smackledorfer's), can I say, is for married heterosexual couples. How can an entity can then not institute a similar policy? How can I, as a state, give a child to an unmarried couple today, when there's a possibility of it being adopted by a married couple tomorrow? And how do a state decide how long to wait for a married couple before accepting applications from other couples.

These questions are easy if the parent is an individual but they are very tough questions if the parent is an entity.


Well, in the scenario of "all things being equal", I would go for the pair that will stay together the longest. In my experience, this is not necessarily the married couple.
As long as divorce is a totally open legal option in this country, marriage is no more a degree of a stable partnership than anything else.
People who are committed to raising children in a loving, safe, and stable environment are the one who should be able to adopt. I don't care if they're straight, gay, married, partnered, bestest best friends, or single.
 
2009-03-02 10:59:30 PM  

Mithiwithi: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Mithiwithi: Actually, there is one last thing you can clarify. If I were to pass a law banning any Farker who has an account creation date of exactly 2008-05-31 01:17:59 from adopting, would you agree that such a law was targeted at you?

If you care to clarify your obession with Fark account creation date?

Well, it happens to be yours. But that's a coincidence. Not targeted at you, right? Right?


It's mine? Really?

If it targeted that exact time, and all others with that time, I would say it certainly targeted us, if it was spelled out that specifically in the language. I see you are attepting to make a correlation here, however muddled it may be.
 
2009-03-02 11:07:47 PM  
I like to consider myself a fairly conservative person. Not a farking republican. A conservative.

My next door neighbors were a gay couple. "Were" only because one of them has passed away. They had a son from a previous marriage of one of them.

They've lived next to me for three years now. In those three years, I have never once woken in the dark of night to find myself plowing some dudes butthole. I've never caught myself thinking holy fark, I caught teh ghey from my neighbors.

The son isn't gay.

This world is a pretty farked up place sometimes, and if some dude finds happiness in another dude's arms, then good for them. I'm glad people can still find that sort of happiness.
This whole argument over gay marriage and gay adoption is thinking that should have been left behind ages ago, just as we should cast off notions that people are different depending on how much melanin they have in their skin.

FFS we're all human beings, America should be a better place than this.
 
2009-03-02 11:09:40 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: If it targeted that exact time, and all others with that time, I would say it certainly targeted us, if it was spelled out that specifically in the language. I see you are attepting to make a correlation here, however muddled it may be.


Ah good, you do get it. I can't help it if it's muddled, though, since your original argument seems just as muddled to me.

Since we're making progress, I'll go back and answer one of ILoveBeer3000's earlier questions, since it's actually relevant now.

ILoveBeer3000: I have to ask, if Washington State or Vermont or some typically liberal state proposed this law, with the same reasoning proposed by the TN legislature, would you still purport that this is an anti-gay proposition?

If Washington State proposed such a law, I'd purport that it was an anti-gay proposition, since gays cannot be married in Washington State. If Vermont proposed such a law and specifically called out marriage without allowing civil unions, that'd be an even more blatant anti-gay proposition. If Massachusetts proposed such a law, it would not be an anti-gay proposition.

A quick survey of Google News on the issue indicates that the supporters of this legislation are being extremely cagey about the motivation behind the law. I actually see this as a sign of progress that even in deep-red Tennessee, legislators are afraid to come right out and say they don't think gays should marry, but instead have to couch it in weasel words like "traditional" relationships.
 
2009-03-02 11:18:25 PM  
The problem is not gays.

Nor is it single parents.

The problem is the farking white trash (and every other race, I'm not racist) women who breed like farking animals with no consideration for the future of their offspring, and the problem is compounded by a system of governments that provides for these mothers and their children, and supports them when they have even more kids they can't support.

You want to solve the problem? Make welfare moms choose between state assistance and kids. They want assistance, they get a tubal ligation.

And no, I'm not talking about poor college students, or those who are victims of a poor economy (layoffs, etc). I'm talking about people who have been on welfare their entire lives and have shown no incentive to get off welfare. It's a tragedy to the kids who have to be raised in that environment.
 
2009-03-02 11:20:41 PM  

captain_heroic44: You have to understand that the religious mindset is %100 bigotry. They don't care if gay couples can be good parents. They just want to discriminate against gay people because they hate gay people. No other reason.


This.

There are zero logic-based arguments against gay marriage or gay adoption. Zero. In fact, the most recent research (published 2008) iterates that children raised by a gay couple are identical to those raised by a straight couple -- no more or less likely to have social problems, school problems, crime problems.

IdahoPrime: I like to consider myself a fairly conservative person. Not a farking republican. A conservative.


Sorry, but you're not conservative. Your sociopolitical stance may have at one time been described as conservative, but that ideology no longer aligns with the word.

Find something new to describe yourself (or get over it and admit you are a libertarian). But if you feel the way you describe in your post, you are not a conservative in 2009 America.

3_Butt_Cheeks: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."


If Barack Obama had said the "right" thing, he would not be president. The reality is that America is full of religious people, and their religion teaches them to hate gays.
 
2009-03-02 11:30:11 PM  

Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo: The problem is not gays.

Nor is it single parents.

The problem is the farking white trash (and every other race, I'm not racist) women who breed like farking animals with no consideration for the future of their offspring, and the problem is compounded by a system of governments that provides for these mothers and their children, and supports them when they have even more kids they can't support.

You want to solve the problem? Make welfare moms choose between state assistance and kids. They want assistance, they get a tubal ligation.

And no, I'm not talking about poor college students, or those who are victims of a poor economy (layoffs, etc). I'm talking about people who have been on welfare their entire lives and have shown no incentive to get off welfare. It's a tragedy to the kids who have to be raised in that environment.


Huh, look at that. Homophobia and racism are problems, but sexism is just dandy.
 
2009-03-02 11:36:53 PM  

bubbaprog:
IdahoPrime: I like to consider myself a fairly conservative person. Not a farking republican. A conservative.

Sorry, but you're not conservative. Your sociopolitical stance may have at one time been described as conservative, but that ideology no longer aligns with the word.


I'll admit I have a lot of libertarian views, and I'm probably more Independent Fusionist than anything, but it's too confusing trying to remember which label people want to call me.
 
2009-03-02 11:43:31 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: peterquince: That's not suspicious in the least. Nope. "I support this but I can't tell you why. Just know that it's not about the gays."

Also, the Family Action Council of Tennessee is lobbying for the legislation. You can guess their general platform.

You say it's a hidden agenda. I say it's about dual parent households. I have evidence this is what was said. You have hidden agendas and innuedos.

Why does it always have to be about gay vs. straight?


Wow, now that's some willful ignorance.
 
2009-03-02 11:43:31 PM  

IdahoPrime: it's too confusing trying to remember which label people want to call me.


Hank?
 
2009-03-02 11:45:08 PM  

ninjakirby: IdahoPrime: it's too confusing trying to remember which label people want to call me.

Hank?


hmmm.

I'll allow it.
Consider me the de facto leader of the Hank party.
 
2009-03-03 12:23:57 AM  

heinekenftw: sloppy shoes: Utopia can be realized. Put down your leaves. We need them not any more to cover our privates, for the pure are going public! We can end sexism, rape, sodomy, heartbreak, impure morality, and lack of educational drive in one swift stroke. No More Sex. Republicans Unite!

It's been a long time since I read the book, and I didn't really enjoy it either, but didn't they try this in Brave New World? And everyone had more sex as a result?

/and yes, I know you were being sarcastic


Same feelings here, not an enjoyable book to read at all. What they did was they sterilized anyone who wasn't a breeder, so they could have sex as much as they wanted. They encouraged kids to have sex with each other as much as possible, and anyone who was uncomfortable with sex at a young age was seen as a problem and "taken away" for more brain washing.

The idea was that the gov't used immediate pleasure as a mask for how crappy the society was. Everyone was given a menial task, a specific order in a caste, and then bombarded with meaningless sex to keep them physically pleasured. I think they used a bunch of drugs too.

All of thats interesting, but they just added in a bunch of stupid shiat where a "wild guy" (Who is really just basically a person from the 1950's, who likes everything about freedom) and smashes him into the mix.

The ideas are interesting, but the book is poorly written, imo. If it were enjoyable to read mmore people might like it.

/boring new world.
 
2009-03-03 12:44:10 AM  
Whenever someone says, "Situation X is similar to situation Y, but situation X is legal and situation Y is not! Legalize situation Y", we end up with situation X being made illegal or taxed all to hell. So don't do that, please.
 
2009-03-03 12:52:58 AM  

Code_Archeologist: Can I get one reason for why a loving gay couple cannot raise an adopted child as effectively as a straight couple? A reason that is based on scientific data, and not religiously justified bigotry.


Duh, it's because The Gays are living a life of sin and depravity. And they're all pedophiles, to boot. Didn't you get the memo?
 
2009-03-03 01:40:26 AM  
there is absolutely nothing stopping single gay people from creating sham marriages and adopting. Tada!
 
2009-03-03 01:53:56 AM  

rohar: Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo: The problem is not gays.

Nor is it single parents.

The problem is the farking white trash (and every other race, I'm not racist) women who breed like farking animals with no consideration for the future of their offspring, and the problem is compounded by a system of governments that provides for these mothers and their children, and supports them when they have even more kids they can't support.

You want to solve the problem? Make welfare moms choose between state assistance and kids. They want assistance, they get a tubal ligation.

And no, I'm not talking about poor college students, or those who are victims of a poor economy (layoffs, etc). I'm talking about people who have been on welfare their entire lives and have shown no incentive to get off welfare. It's a tragedy to the kids who have to be raised in that environment.

Huh, look at that. Homophobia and racism are problems, but sexism is just dandy.


Since when can men give birth?
 
2009-03-03 02:10:24 AM  
Gays will have the same rights as straights, it just may be several more years.
 
2009-03-03 03:13:24 AM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: ...He has also opposes constituional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman...


Not being in favor of something doesn't mean you oppose it.
 
2009-03-03 06:15:45 AM  
Look, in the South, proper sex will always be defined as between a man and his sister. No one will change it. Ever.
 
2009-03-03 06:46:42 AM  
Well, it would be nice if this country would return to protecting our rights instead of finding every way possible to circumvent them.

/homophobe=hoplophobe
//yea, I went there. Rights, the government does not own them.
 
2009-03-03 09:21:44 AM  
Hooray for less government intervention!
 
2009-03-03 09:23:17 AM  
While I would love America to agree on everything Tennessee might as well be a different country from states like Ohio and California. States of America differ just as much as almost countries of europe differ from each other, how about you guys stop biatching about someone disagreeing with you culturally.

I don't agree with this, but that is why I don't live there, if you are in the minority in Tennessee and are gay and want a child, I suggest a change of scenery if you are that serious about this.

When California passed medical marijuana laws and the federal government went down there throat the first to come to there defense were constituents from Alabama and Mississippi. Why is this? Both those states are strictest on marijuana. This is because they came to the defense of states rights.

I don't have to agree with this, to understand that this is what people in Tennessee want. Get over yourselves and worry about your own states.
 
2009-03-03 10:54:07 AM  

mactobain: FTFA:
Children in foster care usually have few people waiting to adopt them, said Adam Pertman, who heads the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York group that works to develop better adoption policies.

According to the Dave Thomas Foundation (new window) there are over 150,000 children waiting in North America's foster care system.


The problem being that these kids are older. Everybody wants babies. I can't blame them for wanting smaller kids. They're quite delicious.
 
2009-03-03 03:47:40 PM  
Listen, you guys are all missing the point. It doesn't matter how many children wind up neglected or unloved as long as these fine legislators can brag about fighting "teh ghey" next election cycle. That's what's REALLY at stake here.
 
Displayed 217 of 217 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report