President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 09, 2007 01:50 AM UTC
63 Comments
“According to Pfaff, this bill is ‘merely a smokescreen for the true intent of this legislation: paving the way for homosexual adoption.'”
I’m homosexual and I don’t want to be adopted….
He was probably waiting for Dobson, Pfaff and the others at Hocus/Pocus/Focus headquarters to issue the talking points on the bill.
I am writing today to ask for your support on HB07-1330. This bill would allow unwed couples to adopt a child jointly. I understand that some citizens may have some concerns in that this would allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt jointly. I wish to address those concerns in particular and explain why I support HB07-1330.
Gay and lesbian people already can and do adopt children. This is not a “gay adoption” bill. A child can be adopted and spend virtually their entire life being raised by a loving same-sex couple in a loving home. But with only a single parent allowed to adopt, the system does not take the child’s best interests into consideration at this time. If the adopting parent dies, that child may end up back in “the system”, losing not just one parent but both parents and the only home that child has ever known. I fail to see how that could possibly be in a child’s best interests. HB07-1330 would fix this problem.
I also support HB07-1330 because it would allow an adopted child to receive health benefits from both parents. Providing the best health care for every child is not only in the child’s best interests, but in our state’s best interests as well. This bill would also make two parents financially responsible for a child instead of just one.
And while this bill does not address whether kids should be placed into homes with same-sex couples, I would still like to address any concerns you may have about this. An American Psychological Association study in 2005 concluded “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” You can read the full study at this location: http://www.apa.org/p… I have also heard concerns that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves later in life. Let me assure you this is a common piece of misinformation. There is no truth to this as you can read for yourself in the APA study. If you are interested in additional studies relating to same-sex parenting, I am happy to provide numerous links to a wealth of information on this subject.
I hope that I can count on your support for this common-sense bill.
If a gay person can adopt – which, in Colorado, they can – then why wouldn’t we allow the other adult some rights?
Imagine a situation where a gay couple adopts a kid and the legal adoptive parent (the one whose name is on all of the paperwork) dies, without the other person’s name on the paperwork, the kid is screwed.
It doesn’t sound like this is about gay marriage or even gay adoption. It sounds like this is common sense (and that’s coming from someone who’s against gay marriage.)
Five bucks says the GOP people who vote for this bill are Witwer, White, and Roberts…with Bueuscher against and maybe Looper voting yes
It’s about the children. (Gawd I hate that expression) If two people are living together, only one can currently adopt the child. If the partner decides to leave, the child is left without child support, inheritance, etc. Whether it is gay or straight, the CHILD needs legal protection. I have come across this situation a number of times and it has always been hetero couples, but it makes little difference to the child left twisting in the legal wind.
As Colorado Pols has said and I’ve said above… NEWSFLASH… gay couples and unmarried straight couples already adopt children. This is not a new thing and has nothing to do with this bill. It’s all about doing what’s best for that child. Excellent point Lauren.
Now if we could just get our representatives to realize this.
Protect the most vulnerable of the living. There’s no better place to start IMHO.
Hey Coloradopols,
Where’d your article & press release from Coffman go?
Now you see it, now you don’t?
to an article about the wrong bill. Lynn Bartels wrote that article about SB-46.
Well, probably not. Certainly not if you ask the people of Colorado. But, curiously, our elected ‘representatives’ (oh the irony!) seem dead-set on thrwarting the loud and clear voice of the people. Coloradans wisely said no to Referendum I and that should be the end of it. But the proud Spartans at the Capitol are set to fight on with or without popular support. Make no mistake, in this case, they are without popular support.
Now, since you asked I am a mouth-breathing, Bible-thumping, authoritarian, homophobic, bigot. Actually, there’s lots of us out there. In fact, 727,433 (a majority!) of us were out in force last November to protect kids and protect marriage. But, you know, democratic will only counts for blue states. In Jesusland, we need to let the ‘grown ups’ decide things.
There are a lot of people that are swayed by the political rhetoric of people like you. It only take a small number of fascists to control the masses. Look at WWII Germany for an example. Obviously, the MAJORITY of Germans were not fascist Nazi scum. In fact, I think that the vast majority of Republicans are decent people. They have just been conned by people like you. When I talk about a “mouth-breathing, Bible-thumping, authoritarian, homophobic, bigot” I am talking about YOU. NOT the 727,433 who got duped.
Just to be fair. People got duped by the amendment 41 debate. Clearly a majority of Colorado voters did not understand the full implications of what they were voting for. Just because 727,433 people sided with you on a single issue does NOT mean they support you on your other issues.
Hey, I’m cool with the whole homophobic bigot label. But Nazi? Whoa, hoss!
I’m curious, though, why I’m the Nazi bigot but my 727,433 friends are just naive. So, they don’t actually believe that children are best raised by a mother and a father, they just vote that way?
Winny, in a democracy, the majority rules. If the majority voices it’s opinion, like Ref. I, that’s the law of the land save some sort of unconstitutionality (like Amendment 2). Nazi Germany was surely not a democracy. Whether you like it or not, the people of Colorado agree with my on the family. And I thank God they do!
I visited a home just today of a couple adopting an eight year old special needs child. She had been on the adoption list for several years with no takers. Her adoptive Mom and Dad aren’t married, so she is being adopted by the Mom and not the Dad. If Dad decides to leave later, this child cannot get child support and if he dies she is not entitled to inherit his wealth. Of course it would be easier if the couple just got married, but between being in this loving home and the residential center she was in before, this is a much better option for her. Do you think she should be left insecure financially should he leave or die?
Shawn Mitchell had a bill last year that would have given this couple a chance at adoption and a quasi-union that would protect this young girl. I supported it and I assume you did, too. But it was killed in deference to the big kahuna: Referendum I. The problem you bring up is one that should be addressed, it’s a real issue and it cannot be ignored. But this bill is going straight to the core of the Veiga/Homosexual agenda: change the definition of a family.
Veiga, who I’ve always found charming, is a known gay rights crusader and she crusading–make no mistake–for the homosexual rights no matter what the people said collectively in 2006. This bill isn’t about this lovely young child you met today, Lauren. It’s tacked on to the central component, gay rights, to hook good people like you and me. I’d support the bill if it were stripped of the radical gay adoption part. But without it, Veiga has no raison d’etre and no bill. She doesn’t care about the little girl, Lauren (or, maybe she does, but this bill isn’t about her), she cares about the homosexual lobby and agenda.
And there’s nothing radical about providing a loving home to a needy child.
I guess you stumped him. What’s that line about sound/fury signifying nothing?
I didn’t call you a Nazi. You called yourself an authoritarian bigot and I was just making a comparison… as you well know.
Second of all… read your history. Germany was indeed a democracy before Hitler took power.
Third, Ref. I was not a poll asking whether or not Coloradans believed that domestic partnership was acceptable. Rather, it was a complicated piece of legislation that had many possible ramifications. There are several reasons that people could have voted against Ref. I… not the least of which is that some high ranking religious leader told them they would go to hell if they didn’t. This has little or nothing to do with their particular beliefs on Ref. I, but rather their larger beliefs as to whether their religious leader is always correct. (Not questioning authority is a sure sign of a doomed democracy).
Last, if I could show you that Hitler had “majority” support in Germany, would you then approve of his fascist tactics because that is how a democracy works? In fact, despite your rhetoric we are NOT a democracy in the United States, but rather a democratic-republic. Or, in other words, a representative democracy. As I’m sure you are well aware, the system was designed to keep the “tyranny of the masses” from having too much control. This isn’t because the founding fathers didn’t have faith in the intentions of the people, but rather that they would be too easily swayed by con men like you. In fact, the initiative system is relatively new to our system of government.
…we’d still have segregation. Black people would still be a second-class minority submitting to the will of a majority of white people. That’s the kind of country you want?
IIRC, Referendum “I” had to do with giving legal recognition to same sex partnership while A-43 had to do with defining marriage as being a relationship between one man and one woman.
I don’t recall either measure prohibiting second parent adoptions. Besides, H.B. 1330 actually protects kids in the event that their parents split up.
I am agnostic but otherwise most of what you preach is just fine with me.
And no matter what the white male hating libs say, most people in this state ARE JUST LIKE YOU!
You are NOT a minority.
Keep fighting dude………..
I’m a lot more partisan than they are and that’s why we have Democrats in government these days. But when it comes to core values, core issues, core principles–faith, family, and freedom, I have little doubt I’m in the majority. It isn’t even a silent majority–we are an outright majority that isn’t afraid to vote, speak, and live our moral values. I’ve been graced to be a Colorado native. Colorado has changed a lot since my 80s childhood–some good changes and some bad. But I always try, whether I’m up in Boulder teaching or taking my little girls to the park here in Denver, to sit back, take a deep breath, and think about this fine state. I look around, think a bit, and realize that Colorado is still the same great state I was blessed to grow up in.
When I was born this was a conservative state that unfailingly put Democrats in office locally and nationally. Now that I’m raising my own kids, nothing has changed. While I may not mark the same candidates, always, as my fellow Coloradans, I’m quite sure we believe the same things about Colorado and America. No matter who I talk to, whether at work, on the campaign trail, or at the dentist’s office, if the conversation ever wanders into the political or religious few ever disagree: America is a good, decent country full of good, decent people; it is strong faith and strong families that keep this country’s spirits high; a family is not multiple choice–it’s a mom and dad, not mom and mom; the government is not the solution to our issues, it’s the problem–the solution is strong families, safe communities, and good schools–and that’s just something government cannot provide–it takes strong character and that only something good morals will provide.
And THAT’S the Colorado I love!
Let me direct you to this USAToday article. http://www.usatoday…. Please direct your attention to the Gallup poll on the left side. As you can see, with a 2% margin of error, 52% people of the people in the Rocky Mountain region view homosexuality as acceptable. It may not be spot-on for Colorado but it shows the trend in the region. In fact, the only places it drops below 50% are in the Plains and Great Lakes regions. Now, you were saying something about a majority?
Furthermore, let me direct your attention to the breakdown by age group. Overall we’re at 62% approval for the 18-29 group, dropping in a fairly linear fashion to just 36% for the 80+ age group. May I also direct your attention to this Economist article on Dobson’s fading power and influence. http://www.economist… Now the average age of people on Dobson’s mailing list is 52. They’re not getting any younger or further away from dying. Uh-oh! 50% of the people in the 50-59 age bracket already view homosexuality as acceptable. (Although something tells me these are not the same people as on Dobson’s mailing list.) You probably hold a very slim majority now, but it won’t be here for long. Dobson and company threw everything they had at Referendum I and defeated it by less than 3%. Get ready. Equality is coming!
Very interesting reads, if a little inaccurate. The USA Today poll shows the South as more accepting of homosexuality than the Rocky Mountain West (53-52%). It also shows typically liberal Wisconsin and Minnesota at only 41%. And, finally, the ‘Rocky Mountain West’ includes liberal (socially) New Mexico and Nevada. I’d put Colorado at just under 50%.
Next article…
The Economist may be right. The religious right may be twilighting here. But judging from the plethora or books coming out decrying the religious right’s influence, I’d say we’re doing just fine (American Taliban, American Theocracy, etc.). If Dobson and Company are really doing that poorly, you wouldn’t know it by the hysteria on the Left.
Our age group, Jason, is much more accepting of homosexuality. If that means less hateful epithets (‘faggot’) and less emotional and physical abuse for gays, then I’m all for it. I’m very pleased that society is becoming more tolerant of gays. I believe that homosexuality is a sin in the same way pre-marital sex is. I am friends with one person and work with another who are both gay. They are nice folks and I, thankfully, have not once seen them abused about being gay. So while I would certainly like to see homosexuality ‘disappear’ as I think it’s a big sin, I would never want to see any sinner abused by the bigoted ‘Pharisess’ among us.
But I’m not talking about acceptance of homosexuality. I’m talking about childrens’ rights. I don’t know how Colorado would vote if we were to make homosexuality illegal (which I certainly don’t favor). All I can bring to is, as cold, hard, proof (which opinion polls are not) is our election results. Last year Colorado voted to protect children and preserve marriage. Most people here believe that marriage and family are fundamental to society and make up our cultural core. There were probably lots of people who have no problem with two gay people shacking up but still voted to protect traditional marriage and the child’s right to a mom and dad. People in 1992 said that the landscape was changing, demography was a-shapin’, and that given 10 years, all would be right by the gay community. But hee we stand 13 years later with the exact same election results–even the same percentages! That tells me that while views on homosexuality and its ‘source’ are changing, views on family and marriage are not.
I would hold off a bit before popping the cork on that celebratory champagne. Demography alone says that traditional conservatives are having twice as many kids as liberals, and while many young people my age are conservative AND don’t care much about homosexuality, there are still a lot of nascent culture warriors out there to give you fits. Jason, I welcome these days where being gay is not a crime, where you won’t be ostracized for your lifestyle. But there still clearly is, in Colorado, a man/woman ideal. Where being gay may be ‘acceptable,’ but we don’t want to see it or hear about it. And we certainly don’t want to open up our core societal institutions to vast interpretation. I like where things are going in Colorado, Jason.
I’ll bet you didn’t expect to hear that!
Is that you are destined to lose. The current attempt to draw us back into the dark ages has been a strong one world wide. Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists alike. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Thank goodness that cooler minds are coming together and finally realizing the true dangers behind religious fundamentalism. These people will do ANYTHING to reach their goals. The nation is slowly awakening to that fact and many good Christians are remembering the actual teaching in the New Testament. These do not include war, torture, or hatred. Religious fundamentalism will fall because the movements do not mesh with the actual teachings of the religions holy books. The only question is, how long will conservatives hold on dragging their feet before they drop the Christian right so that they can pursue other policies that they feel are important.
No, this guy’s reported to be the most sizzlin’ hunk on the Hill (or, he was)…
If you think the 2006 elections symbolized a turn from traditional faith and values, those elected might disagree…
“Against abortion, gun control, and gay marriage…America wants moderates” (sic!)
“My faith teaches family comes first”
So, um, what happened to the Democrat Party?
You can continue your empty rhetoric and I will be satisfied with the fact that you know what I am saying even if you won’t admit it. Ritter is like most Americans and most Coloradans. His faith is important to him. He is not, on the other hand, like YOU. Not only does Ritter not want to cram his faith down others throats, he also actually thinks for himself. For example, just because some person in the church tells him something is true, he doesn’t believe it is true.
Most Christians understand that Jesus was against war and supported loving your fellow man. Only fundamentalist Christians have warped this into supporting war and hating your fellow man. You are, or at least profess to be, one of the latter. Therefore, YOU are not in line with the majority of Americans.
Because you are using incorrectly.
Means that the original incorrect spelling or grammar remains as read, but is noted by the editors. Right?:-)
That’s because homophobia, like racist of a generation ago, is dying out. Despite his best efforts to the contrary, D.D.H.G.L.Q.’s kids are going to grow up in a world where tolerance is the social norm.
Ironically enough, given this particular conversation and who is arguing what, “Republican” literally (or etymologically, if you prefer) means one who favors a compromised democracy which aknowledges that the majority is not always right, and so depends on representatives of the people to make informed and intelligent decisions, whereas “Democrat” literally, or etymologically, means a person who favors absolute majority rule always, by plebiscite on all issues.
In any case, the U.S. Constitutional government can be seen, in some ways, as a blend of all three classically-defined forms of government: Monarchic, Oligarchic, and Democratic. We have a powerful chief executive (and indeed many feared in 1787 that this was too much of a concession to monarchic principles), a body of legislating representatives of the people (named after their Roman predecessors, with a word that basically means “elders”), and an electoral system underwritten by an ideology of popular sovereignty. It was designed this way as a part of the whole “balance of powers” principle, balancing not only the branches of government, but also the forms, to off-set the defects and exploit the advantages of each. The U.S. was never intended to be a Democracy, per se. I’m not sure when we came to use the word “democracy” so loosely, or if indeed that was customary from the beginning, but it is really a misnomer.
The U.S. Constitution itself is an intentional obstruction to pure democracy. It is not enough that the majority declare their preference: The sovereignty of their preferences has been deliberately curtailed by the Constitution. The majority cannot vote to exploit or discriminate against the minority (a principle in theory which obviously has had a long historical struggle to be implemented in practice). The majority cannot vote to deprive an individual of that individual’s rights. A majority, in general, is constrained by design not to violate the fundamental principles that their representatives composed as an expression of their core values.
So the question is not, and cannot be, only a matter of what the majority want. We have wisely bound ourselves also to consider whether the majority’s wishes accord with our Constitutional framework.
We all know the debate between more liberal and strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution: Should we simply follow it literally, or should we treat it as a living document, a guideline to be applied to changing circumstances and an evolving social context? But in either case, we certainly must consider any issue that has become a matter of public debate within the framework provided, as well as submitting it to plebiscite.
None of what I’ve written so far in this post, I think, can be considered a matter of opinion. Now, as a statement of my opinion, I will posit that I believe that the spirit of the Constitution, whether we are talking about the written Constitution or the Constitution that has evolved in the form of a diffuse ideology, has within it a collective intent to protect despised, ill-regarded, or habitually exploited categories of people, exempting categories of people defined by some form of predation on other people, from the effects of the hatred, ill-will, or adverse judgement of the majority or any segment thereof.
Research has generally supported the theory that sexual orientation is usually and primarily due to genetic predisposition. Not only has researched shown, or claimed to show, that the percentage of avowed homosexuals is remarkably constant across cultures and throughout history (though I have to admit that I have no idea of the methodology that could determine these percentages historically), but it has also shown that sexual orientation generally begins to emerge at a very early age, and seems to be independent of any other causal factors.
Children raised by homosexuals have no increased tendency to be homosexuals themselves, and there is no indication of any ill-effects upon them as a result of being raised by homosexuals.
Homosexual activity does not harm society, does not harm others, and seems by all measures to be no one’s business but the business of those who engage in it.
I can appreciate Lauren’s arguments deflecting the debate from consideration of the rights of homosexuals to consideration of the welfare of children, and if this issue were decided by her arguments, for all practical purposes, the results would be equivalent to a triumph for the protection of the rights of homosexuals. And I know that no argument will persuade the large percentage of the population that does not believe that the rights of individuals includes the right to both be a homosexual, and to enjoy the same benefits in a monogamous relationship that heterosexuals enjoy. But it’s a debate we cannot abandon. It’s simply too important.
I believe the parallels between racism and homophobia are rarely if ever exaggerated, and, if anything, too seldom emphasized. History doesn’t repeat itself: It spirals, returning to old themes in new forms. And we really don’t seem to have much of a knack for learning from it. So many homophobic statements, so many homophobic laws, are virtually identical to racist statements and laws from eras and attitudes most of us disassociate ourselves from, and yet which many of us are too willing to repeat.
How is it that Republicans, who oppose intrusive government, think government should intrude where sexual preference is involved? To the response that no one is suggesting that government intrude, just that they don’t sanctify with institutions reserved for heterosexuals, this is pure sophistry. Marriage is the institutionalization of a natural condition: Mating. Before there was marriage, people mated. And before there was marriage, there were homosexuals. To the response that marriage is an institution whose function is the raising of children, and since homosexuals can’t produce children between them, they have no place in the institution, this thread is utterly on-point: There are plenty of children who need a family, and homosexual couples can provide more families in which we will be able to place more children. Besides, there is no law that married couples can only enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to married couples if they have children, nor are there many advocates of excluding all couples who can’t give birth as a couple without outside help (due to infertility, for example), so why should a special status be reserved for homosexual couples? It’s just plain, pure, bigotry. And that, my friends, may or may not be unconstitional, but it certainly is un-American.
I’m beginning to take a keen liking to you, my friend:-)
Yev is competing with Dobbie for length, but his content is much more thought provoking and certainly, no goose stepping.
Now if you could fit that into a 20 second sound bite, we could use it in a debate on Hannity and Colmes.
BTW, my deflection was for the Dobman, not for the argument as a whole.
I really don’t have an opinion on this debate. If gay people already adopt, then I don’t see it as an issue, the left already won. What’s the difference between one gay person adopting a child or two gay people. If we were going to be rigid about this for family value purposes than no single person (gay, straight, in an unmarried relationship, etc) shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. In my opinion, a man and woman who aren’t married that adopt is just as harmful as a gay couple adopting, neither are espousing traditional values.
In any case, the point of this post is a question that’s been on my mind. What about letting gays serve openly in the military? I have my views, but I want to see what everyone else thinks first…..
…the answer you get is that allowing openly gay people to serve would create issues on the battlefield. It would be weird and uncomfortable and it would impede the raison d’etre of brothers in arms. Gays should, of course, be able to serve their country. But it would be better for the troops and the country if they kept that private.
I’ve never served in the military, so I can’t speak from my “personal experience” as a solider. But I can say that I have passed the phase where someone’s sexuality was weird or uncomfortable. I would be interested in hearing from someone in the military about how that may or may not impede military functionality. Any takers out there?
and my best friend was gay. I guess that tells you where I stand. Semper Lavender!
I don’t understand what’s weird about that post.
military with African-Americans and women did.
This is for anyone arguing that this would adversely impact troop cohesion on the battlefield. (I was Googling to find the origional survey but quickly found this reference to it.)
http://onlinereflect…
“A survey published last month of 545 troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan indicated that the vast majority – 73 percent – felt comfortable working around gays. Only 5 percent said they were very uncomfortable around gays.”
You may also wish to read about Eric Alva who served in the Marine Corps for 13 years. This gay marine was the first American wounded in Iraq when he stepped on a landmine. He broke his right arm and lost his right leg. Alva is now speaking out against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. http://www.hrc.org/a…
The whole bit about distraction is a sham, IMHO. The only people distracted are the people who are so uncomfortable about homosexuality that they can’t think straight knowing that someone they have to depend on is a vile sinner who’s part of Satan’s plots.
How much have we sacrificed with this policy, especially in the linguistics corps, where it seems a disproportionate number of speakers of Middle Eastern languages have been dismissed because they were gay? What harm were they doing by being gay, compared to the good they could have been doing by being competent translators?
I’m more worried about the lax admissions standards implemented by Bush, that allow criminals and those with mental disabilites into our Armed Forces. If I knew that some of my fellow soldiers might fly off the handle or curl into a ball at inopportune moments, or had a history of theft that might manifest itself while deployed in a sensitive situation, I’d be much more concerned than I would about a gay person serving by my side.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell needs to go. It’s time we faced up to the fact that many homosexual people have already served with distinction in our Armed Forces, and not done the nation any harm thereby.
There are thousands of children “in the system” who need permanent, loving homes – a parent or parents who will be their parents for life – a home to bring their own children to later in life. The majority of these children are not infants – they may be preschool or elementary school age, or even in their teens, still hoping to find parents. Thank goodness there are loving adults – single or married, straight or gay, young or old – who are willing and able to provide homes for many of these kids. There is no better work to be done.
These cowards want little kids to fight their fight for them. Kids who have no idea what the fuck this is about are going to be shunned or have the crap beat out of them by other kids when ther parents tells them why they can’t hang at some kid who has 2 dad’s house. Right or wrong the kids are the ones who will feel the hate and you want to let them fight the battle for you. Wing the gay union battle before using little kids as your body armor.
Sounds like the real cowards are the parents who are afraid to expose their children to something they dont approve of. Moreover, those same parents would be instilling fear, and, presumably, hatred in their kids. It would be no different if the parents didnt want their childrent to hang out with the kids of an interracial marriage couple. Kids will be mean if their parents give them reason to be mean. What is sad is that you are clearly basing your argument on your own bigotry.
to tolerance and respect. Then maybe these children won’t have to experience this kind of hatred. Raising children in a loving family is a desire that is not reserved to heterosexual people and homosexual people should not have to deny this desire to appease biggots or haters. No one’s child is immune from cruelty and taunts from others for any number of reasons. Avoiding parenting to prevent this would certainly control population growth, but it seems like a non starter to me.
but if straight folks took care of the kids they produced, then this wouldn’t be an issue now would it?
Prejudice and hate are learned behaviors passed on to children. No one is born intolerant. How about we work on that problem?
I have Christian friends that live in Utah which is heavily Mormon. One day their kid wanted to know why the other kids weren’t allowed to play with him. This poor kid is shunned by the Mormon kids. I suppose you think it’s the Christian parents’ fault for taking a job in such a place. Is exposing their kid to this kind of intolerance toward Christians child abuse?
From what I understand, no one testified in opposition to the bill at the committee hearing.
if DDHGLQ and Gecko think that Ted Haggard’s children should be removed from his home….
Don’t get their brains all in a twist. Besides, Haggard’s completely, 100% recovered from his homosexuality now.