|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Republicans Unfit to Adopt
I live in the UK so I don't really know the difference between Republicans but I thought that this story was quite interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060224/cm_huffpost/016311;_ylt=A86.I2Q5wQBEGDwAaAj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
One thing that I'd like to know it what is this "credible research". I think its all in his head. The only people that shouldn't be allowed to adopt in my own opinion, are the following:
All criminals - excluding accidental murderers, and others that have been wrongly accused of a crime where there is no chance in probablity that they comitted it.
| Quote: |
|
If Ohio State Sen. Robert Hagan's proposal becomes law, Republicans would be barred from adopting. Wednesday night, Hagan wrote a mock proposal to counter one introduced by State Rep. Ron Hood (R-Ashville) aimed at banning gay adoption. Hagan said that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities." For his part, Rep. Hood's legislation, backed by eight other conservative Republican lawmakers, would prefer 22,000 Ohio children to languish in foster care than be adopted or fostered by gay parents. What is it about Ohio and Florida? There's always trouble brewing. As we know, they've got lots of problems with their voting machines, lots of dead white people who vote and lots of living black people who aren't allowed to. But now they have something else in common: the irrational-- and probably insincere-- fear of gay adoption. Coincidence? No, rather, as USA Today managed to observe between colorful pie charts, "the second front in the culture wars that began in 2004." These closely divided states barely handed W. the election in 2000 and 2004, and it was in large part due to the gay marriage issue on the ballot, which got the faithful out of their trailers and into the polls. This election year, however, they've got a new tactic-- stop the gays from helping unwanted children. Actually, Florida's had that covered since 1977, thanks to the Anita Bryant Law. But this week Ohio joins 15 other states by introducing this kind of homophobic, Republican base-baiting measure. In fact, the backers have said that if it fails in the assembly, which it will, they will fight to get it on the fall ballot. Never mind the fact that there are virtually no credible studies that show adverse effects in gay adoption or parenting, Ron Hood wants to save the children of Ashville, Ohio! And who is Ron Hood? He's a no neck, proudly flashing his 3 month old daughter on his "pro-family" website. |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060224/cm_huffpost/016311;_ylt=A86.I2Q5wQBEGDwAaAj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
One thing that I'd like to know it what is this "credible research". I think its all in his head. The only people that shouldn't be allowed to adopt in my own opinion, are the following:
All criminals - excluding accidental murderers, and others that have been wrongly accused of a crime where there is no chance in probablity that they comitted it.
I agree that (almost) everyone should be able to adopt, but I think the list of exclusions to that rule should be a broader. To only disallow anone convicted of a crime isn't fair, some crimes are worse than others and some are so-called "victimless" crimes. Would it make me a bad father if I had been busted as a teen for engaging in a sexual act with a prostitute? That's a felony in this state. I wouldn't exclude people just on the fact they had be arrested/convicted of a crime, I'd want to know what crime(s) they had commited and how long ago were they commited.
I'd be more concerned with the present mental state of the applicant....is he/she going to be a fit parent? Do they a history of drug abuse? have they had children of thier own and lost them for some reason? This list could go on and on.
I don't believe that political affiliations should be a factor in adoption, there are many responsible people on both sides of the poilitical fence (notice I am not taking one side over the other), and members of both parties may make good parents.
I'd be more concerned with the present mental state of the applicant....is he/she going to be a fit parent? Do they a history of drug abuse? have they had children of thier own and lost them for some reason? This list could go on and on.
I don't believe that political affiliations should be a factor in adoption, there are many responsible people on both sides of the poilitical fence (notice I am not taking one side over the other), and members of both parties may make good parents.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| I agree that (almost) everyone should be able to adopt, but I think the list of exclusions to that rule should be a broader. To only disallow anone convicted of a crime isn't fair, some crimes are worse than others and some are so-called "victimless" crimes. Would it make me a bad father if I had been busted as a teen for engaging in a sexual act with a prostitute? That's a felony in this state. I wouldn't exclude people just on the fact they had be arrested/convicted of a crime, I'd want to know what crime(s) they had commited and how long ago were they commited.
I'd be more concerned with the present mental state of the applicant....is he/she going to be a fit parent? Do they a history of drug abuse? have they had children of thier own and lost them for some reason? This list could go on and on. I don't believe that political affiliations should be a factor in adoption, there are many responsible people on both sides of the poilitical fence (notice I am not taking one side over the other), and members of both parties may make good parents. |
I ment crimes that are quite bad but then when i think about what will they be showing their future children ? That its ok to break the law ?
| wumingsden wrote: |
| I ment crimes that are quite bad but then when i think about what will they be showing their future children ? That its ok to break the law ? |
I agree completely, covicted felons, for the most part, should not be allowed to adopt, but I think that should be contingent on the crime commited and how long ago was it commited. I don't think it fair to hold a mistake made 20 or 30 years ago against them for the rest of thier lives. And no, it is not ok to teach kids that it's ok to break the law, but if we make them afraid to own up to thier mistakes they will only grow up to be liars and try to hide anything they did wrong....and that isn't right either.
If a person learns from his/her mistake(s), then don't they become lessons?
True, but I also think some law-breakers cannot be redeemed, no matter how long there offence was committed ~ really only talking about murder/rape/child pornography but the law states that there people cannot adopt anyways.
Very true, I conceed the point. For those crimes there is no redemption in my eyes either, and they should not be allowed to adopt.
Is there such a thing as a gay republican?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Is there such a thing as a gay republican? |
I live in the UK so I'm not too sure, but probably not if your questioning it
 |