Left Out of Good Arguments On Homosexual Adoption
We live in twisted times. In these twisted times, men like General Peter Pace ( the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) are forced to apologize for saying what 95% of Americans knew was true a generation ago- that homosexuality is immoral. The reason we live in twisted times is that men and women with twisted reasoning have control of the microphones, televisions and printing presses in this country. Eventually, they pound their preferences into the less wary among us, who eventually accept their reasoning as sound without ever examining it. It isn't.Take for example the "logic" used in this John Brummett article attempting to isolate Republican State Senator Shawn Womack. The courts overturned the Arkansas Department of Human Services regulation that prevented homosexuals from gaining access to children through foster parenting or adoption. The courts said that the legislature had to make rules like that, the department could not do so on it's own accord. So Senator Womack has sponsored the bill to do what the experts at the Department of Health and Human Services wanted to do- protect children from being messed up by deviants. Unlike General Pace, Womack is not backing down. This enrages doctrinaire liberals like Brummett, and Senator Jim Argue, and others who are unwilling to face up to the enormous harm that our permissive attitude towards sexual immorality has done to the country. Protecting children must take a backseat to their "revolution".
I am going to "deconstruct" the arguments in Mr. Brummett's column because I want our audience to understand the way the left argues and why it cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny. They are better at trying to mow their opponents down with a barrage of pseudo-arguments that sound good on the surface, but break down when examined. If they fire enough off, they hope that they will never be examined. They hope the other side will back off due to the sheer intensity of the barrage, regardless of the lack of merit in each shot fired. They want to win on volume, not truth. They don't believe in truth, just winning.
For the de-construction, click "SATURDAY" below and scroll down, or if sent straight here, just scroll down.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Saturday, March 17, 2007
7 Comments:
Here's Brummett after thinking that Sen. Argue scored some kind of childish points because Womack could not "prove" he was not a homosexual to Brummett's unwilling satisfaction...
That's the trouble with mixing sex lives and public policy, such as trying to legislate that homosexuals can't adopt kids or be foster parents.
His principle is that there is some kind of problem that makes it unwise to mix "sex lives and public policy", specifically in adopting children or becoming foster parents. That is his stated principle, and its wrong. We should have a policy against all kinds of deviants adopting children. Pedophiles should be not be allowed to do it. Prostitutes should not be allowed. Polygamists should not be allowed. Open Communes? They should not be allowed. Those engaging in beastiality or S & M should not be allowed to foster parent or adopt children. Few question that- yet. We make all kinds of rules about sex and public policy, specifically about children, and it is both wise and just that we do. Homosexuals have convinced a lot of America that they deserve a pass regardless of how their lifestyle might mess up any children placed in their care. They did it with volume and emotion, not reason.
Discriminating against gays and lesbians is trickier than discriminating against blacks. If your bigotry is racial, you can readily see what you hate. But you can't tell a gay or lesbian by looking. The world has more closet doors than you can reasonably open.
Hit and run reasoning and more red herring. The bill does not ban adoption or foster parenting based on any interior beliefs or urges. It bans based on behaviors. The bill would bar adoption or foster parenthood by single persons "engaged in forms of cohabitation not considered marriage by state law". That is a behavior and that is why all of Argue's sophomoric attempts to get Womack to "prove" he is not a homosexual were non sequeters instead of points for his non-existent case. Yes, sexual orientation is harder to discern than skin color, but so is any behavior. And at any rate the whole attempt to equate discrimination based on immoral behavior with rascism is pure 100% red herring.
So is the bit about "more closet doors than you can open". Pedophiles are in some of those closets, should we forget about denying them children as well? No, the concept that we should not ban this behavior because catching the is difficult is silly. The whole question should be "is being placed in a homosexual home on average as beneficial for the child as placing them in a heterosexual one?"
Madison further wondered if Womack would want to take that child from that natural parent. After all, he seemed to believe homosexuals were uniformly unfit for parenting.
If homosexuals indeed are uniformly unfit for adoptive or foster parenthood, and if the point is to protect children from gay-ifying influences, wouldn't that be the case regardless of family relation?
That's not what his bill was about, Womack countered. He wasn't addressing custody issues for biological parents. But it was precisely what his stereotype was about.
To be fair, I wanted to give the closest thing the other side had to a real point. But Womack is correct. A situation of when a biological parent is homosexual is one in which the right of the parent pre-exists. It is one thing to say that the state should not grant new rights to non-parent homosexuals. It is another to say that the state should take away existing ones. Because the homosexual is still the biological parent they will, despite their orientation, instinctively know things about how that child "ticks" than another foster parent would know. Thus it is less clear that the child would be helped as much by removal and placement in another home. That does not apply to non-parenting homosexual "partners" trying to impose themselves on the child as a parent.
The left just does not care as much about children, and they are willing to sacrifice them on the alter of immorality, making every excuse in the book for abortion, homosexual adoption, expelling God from schools, ect....
The bad guys have a huge arsenal of attacks to level at those who are trying to protect children, but they are not reasonable attacks. They are just loud and numerous. We cannot take time to refute them all in the manner I have done here. Look at how much more space I have had to use to refute the accusations than it takes them to make them. Instead, we must go to the heart of the issue - that the culture of death has no credibility, that their arguments are both weak and false. That their real agenda is hurtful. That way, we don't have to refute every attack. The average person will just know better than to listen to them in the first place.
In your post you say:
The bill does not ban adoption or foster parenting based on any interior beliefs or urges. It bans based on behaviors. The bill would bar adoption or foster parenthood by single persons "engaged in forms of cohabitation not considered marriage by state law". That is a behavior and that is why all of Argue's sophomoric attempts to get Womack to "prove" he is not a homosexual were non sequeters instead of points for his non-existent case.
That analysis is incorrect. True, section 1(c)(1)(a) does say what you said above. However, section 1(b) and section 2(d) both explicitly say that someone may not adopt or foster if "that person is a homosexual." Section (c)(1)(a) does address behavior, but sections 1(b) and 2(d) address status. If a person is totally honest and admits to being a homosexual even though they are celibate, they may not adopt or foster under this bill as it is now written.
Here is a link to the bill:
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2007/public/SB959.pdf
I can see how it would be confusing. I spent 3 years in law school learning how to decipher this kind of muddle.
I see your point. Perhaps it would be clearer with a definition of "homoesexual" as someone who engages in homosexual acts or self-identifies as a homosexual". I still support the bill as it stands though, because it is as clear as our military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, except that the state asks. Self-identification as a homosexual is an action, not just an internal belief.
Even self-identification should be disqualifying in my view. One can be "celebate" and still view two hours of homosexual porn a night. Some individuals are going to get pushed over the line and try t act that out.
Mark, I have said it many times before. If YOU really had any interest in the welfare of these children, YOU would adopt 10-12 of them. If the Duggars can raise 16 kids on $20,000 a year then it only stands to reason that you can raise yours and several more on the same.
I'll send you copies of the required forms if you would like. Just be sure to take your Non-fag i.d. card with you when you go for the interview.
n o n s e q u i t u r
Whether or not Mark has already adopted a foster child is irrelevant as to whether such children should be under the "care" of pervs.
Moreover, your disgust for the Duggars' large family is more evidence that you care far less about kids than you do about some self-centered "lifestyle."
I don't have anything against the Duggar's, other than they are just plain weird, it was merely an example of how with a bit of thrift all of you so-called protectors of children could adopt several of them. As it is, many of these kids would never find a home if it weren't for these fine folks who are adopting them.
I don't know Mark and for all I know he may have a gaggle of adopted kids but I highly doubt it. I am just saying that you should quit griping about something that is really none of your business. Step up and adopt as many of these kids as your budget will allow so you can keep these "pervs" from recruiting any more homosexuals to their ranks.
As always,
Dripping with sarcasm
Children of the state are not my business? You're flat out wrong, Rob.
These kids have been through more than their share of heartache to end up where they are. Lay off this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home