Plan would bar GOP adoption

[Sojourner]

[url="http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm"]story here[/url]

[quote]If a Youngstown lawmaker's proposal becomes Ohio law, Republicans would be barred from being adoptive parents.
State Sen. Robert Hagan sent out e-mails to fellow lawmakers late Wednesday night, stating that he intends to ``introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.'' The e-mail ended with a request for co-sponsorship.
On Thursday, the Democrat said he had not yet found a co-sponsor.
Hagan said his ``tongue was planted firmly in cheek'' when he drafted the proposed legislation.
However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.
Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.
``We need to see what we are doing,'' said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill ``homophobic.''
Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.
To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal 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.''
However, Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims.
Just as ``Hood had no scientific evidence'' to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said.
``It flies in the face of reason when we need to reform our education system, address health care and environmental issues that we put energy and wasted time (into) legislation (Hood's) like this,'' continued Hagan, who has been in the Ohio Senate nine years. Before the Senate, he served 19 years in the Ohio House.[/quote]

[Ash Wednesday]

So introducing a bill that would require all Democrats to be sterilized would not be out of the realms of possibility then? Makes about as much sense.

[thessalonian]

Let's see, having a moral conscience and living an abomination before God are equal? Good is evil and evil is good.

[ironmonk]

Just goes to show how crooked democrats are. This is a prime example of how Democrats today are only concerned with keeping their power even if it was "tongue in cheek". This guy lacks any common sense.

[url="http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com"]http://www.DemocratsNoMore.com[/url]

Democrats:
Tolerance - as long as you believe like they do.
Freedom of Speech - as long as you say what they want.

Adoption by people who act on same sex attraction should be illegal. Society is based on families, father and mother. Neither parent can replace the other. If you want the best for society and the children, they deserve a mother and father.

End of story.

[catholicinsd]

I think the adption is a great thing, be the parents homo or heterosexual

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Feb 28 2006, 02:32 PM'][url="http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm"]story here[/url]
[right][snapback]900129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Har de har har.

Those liberal Dems are such a gas.

I propose we introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Democratic voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.
Credible research shows that adopted children raised in liberal Democratic households are more at risk for developing severe brain damage, inability to tell right from wrong, a sense of entitlement, delusional attitudes that every vice and perversion is deserving of special "rights" and privileges, and severe allergic reactions to anything Christian.


Do you have a point to debate here, or do you actually find this [mod]donkey's[/mod]antics amusing?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 28 2006, 07:34 PM']Do you have a point to debate here, or do you actually find this [mod]donkey's[/mod] antics amusing?
[right][snapback]900259[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hmmm, that's a toughie.






I choose ...... Door No. 2!

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Feb 28 2006, 05:27 PM']I think the adption is a great thing, be the parents homo or heterosexual
[right][snapback]900253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disgree, at least on the homo part. The idea of gay adoption to me would seem to attempt to legitimize the lifestyle itself, much like gay marriage. It seems to go against the traditional family structure as a building block for society and a child's need for stability through the complementary roles of a mother and a father.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 28 2006, 05:48 PM']So introducing a bill that would require all Democrats to be sterilized would not be out of the realms of possibility then? Makes about as much sense.
[right][snapback]900199[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Jennie's a democrat...I'd like to have kids someday...

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Mar 1 2006, 04:52 AM']I disgree, at least on the homo part. The idea of gay adoption to me would seem to attempt to legitimize the lifestyle itself, much like gay marriage. It seems to go against the traditional family structure as a building block for society and a child's need for stability through the complementary roles of a mother and a father.
[right][snapback]900575[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Anything to decrease abortion is great.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 09:06 AM']Anything to decrease abortion is great.
[right][snapback]900710[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Allowing homosexuals to adopt kids will do absolutely nothing to decrease abortion!

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who would be happy to adopt.


"Oh Tommy, I'm pregnant, but I don't think we'll be able to keep our baby!"

"That's ok, Suzy. We can give the baby over to some nice gay people for adoption!"

"But homosexuals aren't allowed to adopt. Only straight folks."

"Oh - guess I'll abort the kid."

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 1 2006, 06:25 PM']Allowing homosexuals to adopt kids will do absolutely nothing to decrease abortion!

There are plenty of heterosexual couples who would be happy to adopt.
"Oh Tommy, I'm pregnant, but I don't think we'll be able to keep our baby!"

"That's ok, Suzy.  We can give the baby over to some nice gay people for adoption!"

"But homosexuals aren't allowed to adopt.  Only straight folks."

"Oh - guess I'll abort the kid."
[right][snapback]901066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The facts back me up. When the number of adoptions goes up, the number of abortions go down.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 05:27 PM']The facts back me up. When the number of adoptions goes up, the number of abortions go down.
[right][snapback]901068[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Do you really think allowing homosexuals to adopt children would cause [b]anyone[/b] considering abortion to choose to keep the child??
Why would the thought of one's child being raised by homosexuals be encouraging to any pregnant mother?

Gimme a break!

We could do more to encourage married couples to adopt children. Allowing "gay couples" to adopt kids would do absolutely nothing to promote life, but would merely give legitimacy to the "homosexual lifestyle."

[catholicinsd]

Would you rather see a child be murdered or raised by a homosexual?

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 07:30 PM']Would you rather see a child be murdered or raised by a homosexual?
[right][snapback]901137[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
False dichotomy here!

Who would murder their child because homosexuals could not legally adopt???? Think about it.

There are plenty of "straight" married couples who could adopt.

You're being absurd here.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 1 2006, 08:51 PM']False dichotomy here!

Who would murder their child because homosexuals could not legally adopt????  Think about it.

There are plenty of "straight" married couples who could adopt.

You're being absurd here.
[right][snapback]901140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mind answering my question?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 28 2006, 05:34 PM']Do you have a point to debate here, or do you actually find this [mod]donkey's[/mod]antics amusing?
[right][snapback]900259[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, it looks like some mod's getting over-zealous with the censorship here.

"Jackass" is not a dirty word. It means simply a male donkey.
Ass is a perfectly acceptable word for a donkey which has been around for ages. (Read any old Bible translation - "The ox and the ass . . .")

A jackass is a male donkey (much as a tomcat is a male cat.) A female ass is called a jennie.
By extension, "jackass" refers to a stupid or asinine person. (I used it with the double-meaning here of the person also being a Democrat - the jackass being their party symbol.)

This censorship here is not "holy" but shows only ignorance of the English language.

[Azriel]

I would highly suggest, especially since I'm the one who mod'ed your post, to take this to PM if you have a problem with it.

I'm not ignorant of the English language, and will not defend my education to you. The term you used is considered in many circles to be profanity, and you were not using it to mean a male donkey, so please do not insult my intelligence.

If I were truly being overzealous, I would have warned you, which I did not.

No one here has been censored - and as I stated, if you have a problem - take it up privately.

[track2004]

In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.

[dustthouart]

[quote name='track2004' date='Mar 2 2006, 02:56 AM']In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.
[right][snapback]901346[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Except that obesity does not always result from gluttony. I doubt that it even mostly results from gluttony.
Whereas the clear and consistant teaching of the Church, from Jesus through the apostolic succession to Benedict, has always taught and will always teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and destructive. It's certainly not a good example for children and should never be encouraged.
We ought to try as much as we can to make this world like heaven, in our laws even. Obviously our laws are already and have always been short of this goal. But that doesn't mean "well, since non-Christians can adopt, and single people can adopt, and heterosexual adulterers can adopt, therefore we shouldn't do anything to keep homosexual couples from adopting."
Unfortunately, this seems difficult to enforce... there's no gay test you can give someone.