« Wal-Mart Dating | Main | Viva La Mexico »

April 27, 2005

Texas Bans Gay Foster Parents

Rear Window Ethics: Texas Bans Gay Foster Parents

I definitely don't think it should be a LAW, but I do think that home variables should be taken into account in foster situations. Adoption - loving, caring, stable home - period. It's a lifelong commitment, and any home variables that the child learns to live with/embrace are for a lifetime and become part of the fabric of who they become.

But in foster situations, the kids have often come from a stressful and/or emotionally difficult situation and will only be in the foster home temporarily. To put them in a home completely foreign from anything they've ever known, and/or a home that in itself adds a level of emotional tension could be a problem. I mean this for ANY situation - a white kid put in a black home, vice versa, a kid put in a home where he doesn't speak the language - certain variables compound an already awful, scarring situation. And no, I'm NOT talking about choosing a wife beater and a prostitute over a double income stable and loving gay couple - wife beaters and prostitutes should never be foster parents - period. And I'm not saying no home versus an alternative lifestyle home - a loving home is better than no home in every situation. I'm just saying I think that the foster home make-up is a viable consideration.

But to single our alternative lifestyle parents and make a law, THAT I disagree with 100%. That I think pulls focus away from the above, that each child, each situation, should be treated individually, and there may be a situation where an alternative lifestyle home is exactly what is needed. While they are at it should outlaw foster parents who smoke, foster parents who eat MacDonald's more than 3 times a week, and foster parents who like cheese.

And I know I'm speaking in broad terms b/c in reality the system doesn't always allow for each situation to be treated individualy, and the choices are not always on the table.

It's also unfortunate that most people don't see being gay and smoking as variables to be equally considered. Though they aren't b/c smoking is negative and sexuality is just sexuality. So I suppose I should say being gay and being asain. And _don't_ they take race into account when placing children?

Posted by nikl at April 27, 2005 01:44 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.n-spiration.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/9

Comments

I don't think they "formally" take race into account in foster situations. There has been lots of controvery and discussion about implications of cross-racial placements, but I'm not aware of a law. There might be though.....

As for the ban in Texas, I think it's sad and wrong. I agree that if we are going to be in the business of banning certain "environments" of foster placements, then things like smoking and other lifestyle issues should also be considered. However, you run into an issue, because then you have to define what "normal" or "acceptable" really is. Do we know? Really? Did anyone grow up in a "normal" home?

We do have research that shows second hand smoke is harmful to children's health. The research on same-sex parenting is not conclusive and has shown NO influence on childhood sexuality. There was a woman on CNN saying otherwise the other day, but her the source of the research was not reputable.

Posted by: kira at April 28, 2005 02:47 PM

yeah, thats a messed up law. the more i hear about it, the more i'm scared of texas.

"alternative lifestyle"? is sexuality a lifestyle or an identity? is there a difference? i dunno, but i always cringe when i see that...is that like saying a Black lifestyle?

Posted by: yamani at April 28, 2005 05:09 PM

Post a comment