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.
It's a foster kid not an adopted kid so it's about "placement" right? I mean, forget the "daughter" stuff. It's not their child (either couple). This is about money. The people in possession of the kid get paid. The kid still belongs to the birth parents. Do I have that right?
Yes, but do you have a point here? Are you saying people are only foster parents because of the money? If so I know some foster parents that would be happy to rip you a new one over that.
A Utah judge has ordered that a foster child being raised by a lesbian couple be taken away and given to a heterosexual couple. There is nothing in Utah law where the sexual preferences of foster parents matters, The judge did this because, he believes, it is better for the child. These strikes me as outrageous. Do conservatives support this kind of judicial activism?
I agree with the judge's decision. I have nothing against homosexuals, but when children are brought into the picture, I believe they need traditional role models. Flame away, if y'like.
It's a foster kid not an adopted kid so it's about "placement" right? I mean, forget the "daughter" stuff. It's not their child (either couple). This is about money. The people in possession of the kid get paid. The kid still belongs to the birth parents. Do I have that right?
Not quite. This couple is intending to adopt, not just be temporary caretakers.
The birth mother is in the process of giving up her parental rights.
I agree with the judge's decision. I have nothing against homosexuals, but when children are brought into the picture, I believe they need traditional role models. Flame away, if y'like.
Those "traditional role models" are the ones who are responsible for the huge number of children who are in the foster care system to begin with. Yeah, those are some "role models" you have there.
I agree with the judge's decision. I have nothing against homosexuals, but when children are brought into the picture, I believe they need traditional role models. Flame away, if y'like.
I attribute it to the unwarranted prejudice against them, particularly by fundamentalist hate filled Christians.
And your qualifications for your attributions are...?
A 'normal' family consists of a mother and a father. Males and females have different attributes, as well as personalities, and a child needs both a mother and a father to have the best shot at growing up well adjusted. There are scores of studies on this subject.
This has nothing to do with personal prejudices, if indeed they exist, and everything to do with biology.
And your qualifications for your attributions are...?
A 'normal' family consists of a mother and a father. Males and females have different attributes, as well as personalities, and a child needs both a mother and a father to have the best shot at growing up well adjusted. There are scores of studies on this subject.
I also know some single mothers that would rip you over this also........If you are arguing for perfection you are wasting your time and IMO you should just state your true feelings as opposed to something that is never going to happen.
Those "traditional role models" are the ones who are responsible for the huge number of children who are in the foster care system to begin with. Yeah, those are some "role models" you have there.
Obviously, any heterosexual couple that is caring for children in the foster care system will have undergone extensive background checks and training. Traditional role models, in this case, refer to one stable and loving mother and one stable and loving father. These aren't the kind of people who are 'responsible for the huge number of children who are in the foster care system to begin with.' Frankly, that is an absurd contention.
The judge took a study and applied a ruling. Same as 100 or so stupid rulings they agree with and ignore the reasoning behind. I don't see them complaining about the use of biased opinionated studies in the Second Circuit recently.
The judge took a study and applied a ruling. Same as 100 or so stupid rulings they agree with and ignore the reasoning behind. I don't see them complaining about the use of biased opinionated studies in the Second Circuit recently.
The left? I'm pro life so I support those who are willing and able to take in the unwanted children.
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.
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.
