Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Virginia Moves forward To Let Agencies Bar Gay Adoption
Source:
AssociatedPress
URL Source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/201 ... b/09/us-virginia-gay-adoption/
Published: Feb 9, 2012
Author: staff writers
Post Date: 2012-02-09 18:23:09 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 36528
Comments: 87
Virginia Moves forward To Let Agencies Bar Gay Adoption The Virginia state Senate passed legislation Thursday allowing private adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality. The mostly party-line 22-18 vote virtually ensures the Republican-backed bill will become law. The House of Delegates has an identical version of the bill and Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell says he will sign it. Virginia would become just the second state with such a law, which supporters said was modeled after North Dakota's. State Sen. Jeffrey McWaters, a Republican from Virginia Beach, said his "conscience clause" bill protects the religious rights of private child placement agencies, including dozens that contract with the state to provide foster care and adoption services. "This is completely consistent with state and federal law," McWaters said. "It does not change who can or cannot adopt a child." Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria and the only openly gay member of the General Assembly, suggested all the talk about religious freedom is a smokescreen for discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. "It has always been about denying LGBT Virginians the right to form families, no matter what we say," Ebbin said. He said the bill will endanger gay and bisexual children, who make up a disproportionate share of youths awaiting a home, by allowing agencies to place them with parents opposed to homosexuality. "This does not uphold anyone's moral principles," Ebbin said. "It's morally wrong." Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, said agencies that contract with the state should not be allowed to discriminate. "You have a right to exercise religion as you see fit, but you don't have a right to impose it on someone else using state dollars," he said. Sen. Mark Herring, D-Loudoun, said the bill conflicts with the principle that the best interest of the child is paramount. "Neither the interests of the placement agency nor their beliefs should stand in the way," he said. The Family Foundation of Virginia, which lobbied for the legislation, lauded the Senate's action. "The passage of conscience protection for private child placement agencies by a bipartisan majority in the Senate is a tremendous victory for religious liberty and for the thousands of children and families around Virginia that are served by these agencies," Victoria Cobb, the foundation's president, said in a written statement. The Child Welfare League of America had sent a letter to senators earlier in the week urging them to reject the bill, saying it would just make it more difficult to place the approximately 1,300 Virginia children waiting for a home. "These children have been through so much already," Christine James-Brown, president of the organization, wrote. "It is cruel to deny them a secure home with a qualified family that happens to differ from the religious or moral beliefs held by a particular agency." If either the House or the Senate approves the other chamber's bill unchanged, it will go to the governor. If either chamber amends the bill _ which seems unlikely after the Senate rejected a string of amendments proposed by Democrats on Wednesday _ it could be sent to conference committee to resolve the differences.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
Mike you keep using the same childish arguments. If we make laws against being queer people are still going to do it. If we make laws against murder people are still going to do it. If we make laws against stealing people are still going to do it. So just because a law will not be followed doesn't make it natural or right. It isn't hard to comprehend for anyone with a second grade education.
Until they come on websites and proclaim that it is normal and good. Then they influence kids and should be dealt with. It should maybe a crime since you are targeting kids for recruitment.
Mike Theives can function well in society except when they steal. So your argument is no argument at all.
Murder does not involve consenting adults. The behavior a murderer engages in that precipitates to murder is usually pretty damn reprehensible. Homosexual behavior between like minded people hurts no one, and gay people are very much just as productive and well adjusted socially as straight people.
Mike. You are lying. There is no such research.
Stealing does not involve a consenting victims, again, this is a fallacious argument.
Exactly how I, and my family members feel. It leaves NO room for mis- understanding Mike, except I would come after you, or any other pervert with my glock. And if you think for one second that calling me, or any of my loved ones, your stupid dog whistle names, bigot, homophobe, or whatever, would save your sorry ass...think again chump! Where our children are concerned you STUPID PERVERT, we'll take our chances with the 12, but sick shits such as yourself, you'll be dealing with the 6! jmho!
(Ferret Mike: "The best way to lead is by example. If we got rid of nuclear weapons, it would be profoundly easier to justify acting against other nations should they act to develop them.")
You said right is always the same. Right and wrong are the same for children and adults. So you must think that pedophiles are normal if the kid is consenting. Mike you are sick.
Like I said. Just because two people consent to something doesn't make it right. Let me smack you down with something you think is wrong. If bill Gates Consents to Give Mitt Romney a billion dollars to run against the perverted freak in the white house. That would be consenting adults.
Not that I expect Mike would do that. I was just being theoretical.
Mike no matter how hard you try I will never support you being able to adopt.
It is right there at the APA site, it is there in libraries both public and in those of universities, and if I went there and did a huge cut and paste of it here, no one would read it, or pay attention to it. You need to go read it by virtue of your own effort. The fact it exists is undeniable, things would not be changing othewise. I have been debating this issue since 1995 and I have done the citation, links and cut and paste. But in the end that does little to change a mind like yours'. You are smart enough to find stuff on the APA site, i an quite sure. Though if you were willing to read it and take it seriously, I might be convinced to do your work for you and once again go get links to this research material, I might. But you are going to have to ask me to, and then promise to read it. Frankly, I don't think you have the desire, or propensity to make the effort to do this. And the lurker base of this site is just not large enough to do this exercise just for their benefit.
I am not gay, nor in the market to adopt. Stop being a smart ass.
How big is the lurker base?
You need maturity and seasoning to be able to form consent. Which is why there are statutory rape laws, and why pedophiles victimize. A twenty-five year old woman having sexual relations with another twenty-five year old woman is only a big deal if you make it that way, and both people are old enough, and have enough life experience to make the choice of whom they go to bed with. And it is not up to people like you to impress their lack of empathy or human tolerance on them to make them do otherwise.
It's your site, you tell me.
Bad tactic trying to but me on the defensive that way. This sort of argumentative tactic just shows how much maturity you lack. Grow up. Even were you in the same city as myself, I don't go into a house I am not invited into, and when I am at another's home, I am a good guest. You are being beaten up argumentatively and that pisses you off so you want to wave your pecker at me and talk big talk about physical violence you should spare yourself the trouble; I am not frightened by you. like Murron claims, I own a glock I bought a long time ago while in the Army along with several other weapons. I would never go out and bully and assault anyone. But I am also not shy when it comes to the job of defending myself. And if I lived in fear, i wouldn't be a political activist, or be talking on these 'chit chat' boards as buckeroo likes to call them. ;-)
You're a homophobe and a dipshit.
You're not a bigot. Just a stupid dipshit who doesn't know any better. I also suspect you're a closet gay.
That is what you perverts say when you whenever anyone challenges your perverting society.
That is what you perverts say when you whenever anyone challenges your perverting society. It's true, isn't it?
I'd say you are the pervert who can't keep his nose out of other people's bed rooms. Meguro has a point about one thing; they did a study where they showed a study group of straight men who weren't bigoted and others with your sort of strong reaction to homosexuality. They showed both groups porn, both straight and gay and measured the reaction of the men's penises. The homophobic men generally showed an increase in turgidity when showed the gay porn. This indicates that with some me, their true feelings of sexual attraction to other me causes deep conflict within them expressed as homophobic sentiment. It is possible you do have sexual feelings for other me, or you are just a stupid bully who got off on picking on boys smaller than you in high school and found tormenting them by calling them gay to be a fun sport. Either way Stone, there is something not quite right about you. You should get help.
August 1996 Press Release WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory. Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience. Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence. Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.' Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did. When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video. Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.' Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445. http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm Here is a brief explination of that study. Read it and learn, Stone.
C'mon Mike. Wadda load of psycho-babble horseshit.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 after reviewing the evidence that it was not a mental disorder. I read much their position papers and what their conclusions were, and I looked at how they did their impartial studies that arrived at the conclusion that helped 'decriminalize homosexuality by proving it to not be a disorder. After a similar review in 1987, ego-dystonic homosexuality was also taken out of the DMS, and the DMS-III-R was published without it. I read the work this action was based on too. I had a job with basic Right Oregon as an activist fighting the Oregon Citizen's Alliance's attempt to go after homosexuals with a series of ballot measures we helped defeat. The OCA eventually disbanded in disgrace after we exposed them for who they were to the people of Oregon. I have worked long and hard to help fight homophobia and to advance the cause of human rights for this grou; and others in my years as an activist. It is far from what you describe it as. The studies were done properly and were well vetting. So was the one I just talked about concerning homophobic people. If you have a credible citation proving otherwise, let's have it.
Global warming. Everybody's got an agenda. Big words don't impress me. The bigger the words, the bigger the liar. There's no such fucking thing Mike. You know that. I know you know that. What's that guys name who got screwed over for claiming the earth orbited the sun and not the other way round? Fuck, I just found out fried foods aren't a threat to heart health. Who knew?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Human rights is my agenda, Woody. We are talking about how some claim to care about that, but all I see is a desire to control and oppress. You have Stone here wanting to kill anyone who gets in his way of controlling a woman's pregnancy. he destroys the notion his stand is about caring for the sanctity of life the second he talks about passing out death should he not get his way. You have him and others wanting to lynch people back into the closet and he threatens a poster to make him sorry he didn't crawl into self loathing and second class citizenship if he doesn't listen to his notion of human control. I call bullshit on him and all of those who want to scapegoat people to use the fear that scapegoating causes to control others by trying to make them fear people who are good citizens, work hard, fight for their country, and only want to be treated fairly. It ain't your or Stone's business who anyone sleeps with, marries, or cares about. Not as long as we are talking about much the same relationship anyone else has. No one has a right to play gender cop, and the game of spite and hatred of people who are gay, transgender, or bisexual. That game is coming to the end, and those who dare try to control people for their own political or social gain is sinking into the deserved spot it has earned in the dustbin of history. And if you don't like it, then it's your or anyone else wanting to scapegoat and bully others merely to advance your socio-political agenda's tough shit. That plain enough talk for ya? I don't like oppression, and many including myself are willing to to whatever it takes to stop it.
Mike lets put it this way. You're a loser nobody that supports perverting our nation. You are the enemy.
No you are a walking talking pedophile propagandist.
No need to read it. You are an evil witch that wants to make it easy for faggots to molest kids. You are a sicko. Post your picture. You look like one too. It is in your eyes.
shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
You are too intellectually lazy to read it, face it. No Stonie, these posts show you for what you are, someone who operates on emotions, and lacks an emotional anchor. I'll tell you who the sicko is here; someone who would endanger people who work for the government doing drugery work like opening the mail at the White House. You posted that thread with a dangerous school boy prank of mailing unrefrigerated semen to the White House. It is illegal to send blood pathogens through the mail, something semen can have in it. You called it a protest, it's not. In a protest, one makes it successful by doing it without risk to others or violence. You hate President Obama so much, you would risk the health of workers by possibly exposing them to hepatitis B, HIV, and many other pathogens hat can live in body fluids. That is a dangerous prank, worse than calling in a bomb threat. You are emotionally unstable and lack empathy and caring for others. So, you can say what you like about me, the words of hate from a madman don't worry me at all.
Of course not, dipshit. We wouldn't want you to hurt your head. Are you a closet gay that hates himself?
Mike, have you ever considered that THAT is EXACTLY what the "gay and lesbian" agenda is doing, and the people it is being done to don't like it? Acceptance can never be forced upon someone, no matter how hard they try to do just that. Acceptance is given by the person doing the acccepting, not something forced upon the "acceptor". To many people, "married" homosexuals are no more married than two 8 year olds who play dress up and say "I do" to each other. Correct. So why do they keep beating me over the head with their sexuality and keep demanding my acceptance and approval of what they're doing?? THEY seem to think it's my business.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
Can I think that way of your marriage, assuming of course you're married?
Yes. That's exactly my point. The difference between you and me is that I don't go running to government to force you to accept my marriage. And I'll wager that you and I would agree that if you thought of my marriage that way, no amount of government edict would make you accept it. You would, however, resent the attempt. The law of unintended consequence is at work here meguro. You can't pass a law ordering that people respect and accept you, and expect it to work.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so! (Boris Y) "I'd vote for obama" (Mad Dog, Paul voter) IF RonniePAULIE runs as a repukelican't, (OR even as a demonRAT), against the messiah "king" obammy; I'd vote FOR him.
No you can't. Marriage has a specific definition. It is found in the Bible. It is the union between a man and a woman. The first amendment is supposed to protect the church from pervert dick suckers like Obama.
It's also in the New Oxford American dictionary, dipshit. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage. • the state of being married: women want equality in marriage. • informal a similar union between partners of the same sex: gay marriage.
You queers are miserable people. You're not liked to much by society. Your trying to force normal people to accept perversion is sick. You are sick. You can't marry a woman. Only a man. You're a literal dipshit now aren't you.
Nope, you're the dipshit, dipshit. Go fuck yourself.
Go fuck a girl freak.
You can't legislate or in any way coerce people to be what they are not.
#48. To: Ferret Mike (#46)
The sexual relationships of gay people are consenting, and to not infringe on anybody.
#49. To: Ferret Mike (#46)
ey function well in society, and are normal in every way. trying to say they are not because one cannot imagine having that gender preference is the expression of an irrational bias.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#43)
"Mike there have always been murderers too."
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#46)
The issue has sparked much research inthe issue, and the research proved the bias as unjustified
#52. To: A K A Stone (#49)
#53. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#45)
"Because if you came to my house and started telling my kids it was normal. I would beat you to a pulp."
#54. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
Murder does not involve consenting adults. The behavior a murderer engages in that precipitates to murder is usually pretty damn reprehensible.
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
Stealing does not involve a consenting victims, again, this is a fallacious argument.
#56. To: Murron (#53)
Exactly how I, and my family members feel. It leaves NO room for mis- understanding Mike, except I would come after you, or any other pervert with my glock.
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
Homosexual behavior between like minded people hurts no one
#58. To: A K A Stone (#51)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#57)
"Mike no matter how hard you try I will never support you being able to adopt."
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
And the lurker base of this site is just not large enough to do this exercise just for their benefit.
#61. To: A K A Stone (#54)
"So you must think that pedophiles are normal if the kid is consenting."
#62. To: A K A Stone (#60)
#63. To: A K A Stone (#45)
(Edited)
"So stay away from the kids Mike. Because if you came to my house and started telling my kids it was normal. I would beat you to a pulp."
#64. To: A K A Stone (#13)
You are a normaphobe and a pussyphobe.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Why do you call us bigots?
#66. To: meguro (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66)
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
(Edited)
#69. To: A K A Stonemeguro (#67)
(Edited)
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#68)
bullshit study
#71. To: Wood_Chopper (#70)
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
If you have a credible citation proving otherwise, let's have it.
impartial studies
#73. To: Wood_Chopper (#72)
(Edited)
#74. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
Human rights is my agenda,
#76. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
Here is a brief explination of that study. Read it and learn, Stone.
#77. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
"No need to read it."
#79. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#76)
(Edited)
No need to read it.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
and those who dare try to control people for their own political or social gain is sinking into the deserved spot it has earned in the dustbin of history.
It ain't your or Stone's business who anyone sleeps with, marries, or cares about.
#81. To: Wood_Chopper (#80)
To many people, "married" homosexuals are no more married than two 8 year olds who play dress up and say "I do" to each other.
#82. To: meguro (#81)
Can I think that way of your marriage, assuming of course you're married?
#83. To: meguro (#81)
an I think that way of your marriage, assuming of course you're married?
#84. To: A K A Stone (#83)
No you can't. Marriage has a specific definition. It is found in the Bible.
#85. To: meguro (#84)
#86. To: A K A Stone (#85)
You queers are miserable people. You're not liked to much by society. Your trying to force normal people to accept perversion is sick. You are sick. You can't marry a woman. Only a man. You're a literal dipshit now aren't you.
#87. To: meguro (#86)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]