U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2008, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 12,797,835 times
Reputation: 3536

Advertisements

Anyone feel really strongly on the issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:30 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 6,869,524 times
Reputation: 803
This is the initiative to prevent unmarried couples from fostering children right?

I feel very strongly that it should be bounced from the ballot as unconstitutional. Barring that, a resounding defeat would be very good for the state's children. At least Beebe is now beginning to state he's opposed to it even if it is reserved opposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,546 posts, read 79,852,473 times
Reputation: 38909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow73 View Post
This is the initiative to prevent unmarried couples from fostering children right?

I feel very strongly that it should be bounced from the ballot as unconstitutional. Barring that, a resounding defeat would be very good for the state's children. At least Beebe is now beginning to state he's opposed to it even if it is reserved opposition.
I have such mixed feelings, my hubby and I have bee tossing it back and forth. I will probably vote NO, There are so many foster kids and not nearly enough homes. We had a friend (single guy) who took in foster boys in their teens when we lived in NM. No one could have tried harder to be a good role model for these boys. Then I think about other foster parents, especially single ones and I cringe. Of course this can happen with married as well as unmarried couples.

My problem lies more with the adoption issue than the foster parenting.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:57 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 6,869,524 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
I have such mixed feelings, my hubby and I have bee tossing it back and forth. I will probably vote NO, There are so many foster kids and not nearly enough homes. We had a friend (single guy) who took in foster boys in their teens when we lived in NM. No one could have tried harder to be a good role model for these boys. Then I think about other foster parents, especially single ones and I cringe. Of course this can happen with married as well as unmarried couples.

My problem lies more with the adoption issue than the foster parenting.

Nita
My opposition is 2-fold. Number 1 is the fact that this could eliminate a lot of potential homes for children and I can't in imagine anyone would think it's better for them to stay in institutional settings than be placed with a family, regardless of the family's orientation or marital status. Number 2 is the obvious fact this is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent gay couples from fostering children. If this passes, our state will be at the heart of a tornado of litigation. And we certainly don't need that.

As for the argument of this possibly eliminating some less than capable single foster parents: on the first, I do not think this has ANY bearing on single foster parents, only unwed couples; secondly the task of weeding out those who are not capable should fall to interviewers and full background checks with plenty of oversight follow-ups and not a blanket statement of "No Confidence" from the state.

Why should we invite the litigation???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:16 AM
 
Location: The Great State of Arkansas
5,981 posts, read 15,942,199 times
Reputation: 7531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow73 View Post
secondly the task of weeding out those who are not capable should fall to interviewers and full background checks with plenty of oversight follow-ups and not a blanket statement of "No Confidence" from the state.

Why should we invite the litigation???
If I had much faith in DHS and their ability to be able to follow through on things it would help. As it is, we have precious few resources for follow up, and an interview is only as good as the person doing the note-taking. And I don't have a solution for that; I think DHS has been run poorly for many, many years, and more children are probably at risk of long term problems from being in the system than they would be in a single parent home - or gay parent home, or whatever. The DHS track record is abysmal, but the whole system needs an intense overhaul.

All that being said - get those kids into caring homes. I completely agree it is a smokescreen to ward off gay couples fostering. The idea that marriage will make a more secure environment is bunk anyway...you have a 50/50 chance of making it whether you're blessed by God or not. (tongue in cheek there, folks..nothing against traditional marriage, I've done it several times ). If there are people married, single, gay, purple, or mixed Martians out there who are willing to house children in need, get 'em in and get 'em started - the kids need them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:18 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 6,869,524 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam I Am View Post
If I had much faith in DHS and their ability to be able to follow through on things it would help. As it is, we have precious few resources for follow up, and an interview is only as good as the person doing the note-taking. And I don't have a solution for that; I think DHS has been run poorly for many, many years, and more children are probably at risk of long term problems from being in the system than they would be in a single parent home - or gay parent home, or whatever. The DHS track record is abysmal, but the whole system needs an intense overhaul.

All that being said - get those kids into caring homes. I completely agree it is a smokescreen to ward off gay couples fostering. The idea that marriage will make a more secure environment is bunk anyway...you have a 50/50 chance of making it whether you're blessed by God or not. (tongue in cheek there, folks..nothing against traditional marriage, I've done it several times ). If there are people married, single, gay, purple, or mixed Martians out there who are willing to house children in need, get 'em in and get 'em started - the kids need them.
Amen to that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:29 AM
 
483 posts, read 1,363,533 times
Reputation: 195
I guess I will be the one person on here who thinks that a veil or not, that I will vote yes! I will also say that my faith would not allow me to feel that placing children in a gay household is "ok". IMO it is not! I also do not believe that a single parent home is as ideal as a home with a mom and a dad. Growing up in a single parent home I know the complications and hardships that can come of it. In all reality, whether people choose to believe it or not, this measure is just trying to ensure that children are placed in the best possible scenario. Most these children have been through enough as it is, they don't need placed in another controversial spot!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:29 AM
 
1,703 posts, read 5,557,386 times
Reputation: 912
This is the second election in which anti-gay people have put an issue on the ballot in order to ensure that Arkansas goes for the Republican Presidential candidate. It's a smokescreen.

I'm opposed to the initiative. It's bigotry, pure and simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:38 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 6,869,524 times
Reputation: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTTNFAM View Post
I guess I will be the one person on here who thinks that a veil or not, that I will vote yes! I will also say that my faith would not allow me to feel that placing children in a gay household is "ok". IMO it is not! I also do not believe that a single parent home is as ideal as a home with a mom and a dad. Growing up in a single parent home I know the complications and hardships that can come of it. In all reality, whether people choose to believe it or not, this measure is just trying to ensure that children are placed in the best possible scenario. Most these children have been through enough as it is, they don't need placed in another controversial spot!
Let me ask you this very pointed question: Would you have rather grown up in a single parent household where you were loved and nurtured as best as possible or would you rather have grown up in an institution with "The State" as your sole caretaker? That's really the breadth of options we're talking about here. There isn't much in between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 14,649,729 times
Reputation: 4457
As far as I know gays already are banned from adopting in this state. If that's so, then this is just a political move to rally the troops to vote for McCain. On one side it's good people are standing up for moral values, but on the other side this only re-enforces our image as a backward state. I am going to vote no regardless of my personal feelings on the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top