02/27/2008
News: Sinead O'Connor, Chris Dodd, Kickboxing, William F. Buckley
American conservative standard-bearer William F. Buckley, Jr. is dead at 82.
Yesterday, Robbie showed us a snippet of Mariah Carey's new "Touch My Body" video. Here's the whole thing.
Madonna names new record Hard Candy: "She loves candy. It's about the juxtaposition of tough and sweetness, or as Madonna so eloquently expressed: 'I'm gonna kick your ass, but it's going to make you feel good.'"
UK hit by 5.2 earthquake, biggest since 1984: "Student David Bates, 19, suffered a suspected broken pelvis when he was hit by a falling piece of chimney in his attic bedroom in Wombwell, South Yorkshire, his father, Paul, said. Paul Bates said he was woken by a deep rumble which was followed by shouts from his son upstairs. He said David was hit by a piece of masonry about 2ft square, which had fallen from the chimney stack. 'This massive piece of stone had landed on his hip and he was just shouting that he thought it was broken and I called an ambulance,' he said. 'You just don't expect it. Of all the things that can happen - an earthquake.'"
Santa Clara, California Board of Supervisors votes to formally oppose FDA ban on gay blood donation.
Openly gay kickboxer Rod Llaneza discusses his champion status: "Llaneza is passionate when conversation turns to kickboxing, no doubt rekindling the desire that helped him defend the USA Amateur Champion belt from the Professional Karate Commission, a sanctioning body for kickboxing and karate, for four years until he retired in 2004 with a 19-2 record. When talk is of kickboxing, Llaneza displays a confident, passionate and even cocky side that served him well in the ring for kickboxing or boxing, where he captured a Golden Gloves title for Georgia. 'I love to perform and go out into the ring. I don’t really care about winning and losing. It’s all about the performing. I pride myself on being sharp. You’ll never be bored watching my fight,' he says."
Serve: Larry Craig looking for summer interns.
Senator Chris Dodd endorses Obama.
Sinead O'Connor unleashes on Kylie Minogue: "I know Australian fans might want to shoot me for saying this, but that would be a far better option than to listen to one of her albums."
Straight Australian Idol Guy Sebastian dogged by anti-gay taunts: "In September 2006, the original Australian Idol winner revealed he was on the verge of quitting the industry after his Palm Beach house was pelted with eggs and the word 'faggot' spray-painted on his car. But Sebastian, who recently became engaged to his long-term girlfriend Julie Egan, believes he has finally built up the necessary tolerance to handle the slander. 'I used to think it was just a part of being in the public eye, but really that kind of behaviour is just not on - that line shouldn't be crossed,' he said."
Gay grandson of Al Capone speaks.
British scientists explain how world will end: "The sun will slowly expand into a red giant, pushing the Earth farther out into space, but not far enough. Our home planet will be snagged by the sun's outer atmosphere, gradually plunging to its doom inside the fiery stellar furnace."
Christian foster parents in the UK denied application to parent because of their views on homosexuality: " The devastated couple withdrew an application to their council to continue as foster carers after being told they must condone homosexuality to adhere to gay rights laws. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality. The council says its fostering panel felt it would not be following the regulations if it placed a child with a couple who could not comply with the Act."
Justin Timberlake begins work on Open Road movie.
Posted 1:50 PM EST by Andy in Australia, Blood Donation, California, Chris Dodd, Great Britain, Justin Timberlake, Kylie Minogue, Larry Craig, Madonna, Mariah Carey, News | Permalink
Comments
more gay kickboxers please.
NIIIICE.
Posted by: buzz | Feb 27, 2008 1:56:52 PM
That little bit of news about the UK foster parenting system just made my day. If you think homosexuality is wrong, I'm sorry but you have no business educating children.
Posted by: Butter | Feb 27, 2008 2:02:27 PM
LOL... Too funny... Can you imagine being Larry Craig's intern? Are wide stances considered an asset?
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 27, 2008 2:06:47 PM
Isn't taking away children from parents because they oppose homosexuality just as bad as taking away children from parents because they are homosexual? While I obviously disagree with those peoples' point of view, if they are loving parents and do a good job with their foster children they should be allowed to do it.
Posted by: MT | Feb 27, 2008 2:09:24 PM
I'm with MT on the parenting question. What matters is a good, loving home for kids, not some feel good rule by goverment. You don't win over people's minds with intolerance from any side of an arguement.
I am sorry to see William F. Buckley has passed. While I don't agree with much of his views, I had great admiration for the man's intellect and sardonic humor. Plus he favored marijuana and was against the war in Iraq.
My favorite Buckley quote was when he was running for Mayor of New York City on the Conservative line in the 60's(a party he helped form)....he was asked what he would do if he won.....Buckley got that evil grin he had and said....**I would demand a recount**. RIP
Posted by: Joshua | Feb 27, 2008 2:22:04 PM
@MT: How can you say that these bigots can even be capable of doing a good job at raising a kid?
Posted by: Butter | Feb 27, 2008 2:22:12 PM
Here's one of Buckley's "witticisms" that really sticks in my mind (as quoted in the NYT obit):
“Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm to prevent common needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of homosexuals.”
As far as I know, he never apologized for this shameful fearmongering.
Good riddance.
Posted by: DC Dude | Feb 27, 2008 2:39:46 PM
Good riddance, William F. Buckley. Given your opinion that those with HIV should be tattooed to prevent 'victimization' of others, I hope yours was an especially painful death.
Posted by: peterparker | Feb 27, 2008 2:39:53 PM
Hmm, if that Buckley quote is correct, then sorry DC and PP, I don't read it the way you do.
It seems to say we could have prevented a lot of the spread of AIDS if IV drug users had a mark on their arms and gay men had a mark on their ass. Then you would know for sure if you are about to engage in drug use or sex with someone who is HIV+.
Though I don't necessarily agree with that approach, it is about people being honest and it would eliminate sweeping persecution of those within these groups who aren't +.
And the quote reads victimization "OF" not victimization "BY"
Posted by: ATLSteve | Feb 27, 2008 3:03:10 PM
Butter,
How many perfectly well-adjusted commenters here were raised by homophobic parents?
Posted by: 24play | Feb 27, 2008 3:04:48 PM
PeterParker, you beat me to it. While it is true that Buckley was very bright, that intelligence was eclipsed by such a contempt for human dignity that he found it plausible that we should tattoo the HIV+. How appalling. Should we, to protect the unwitting, tattoo "asshole" and "bigot" on people?
Posted by: LD | Feb 27, 2008 3:07:51 PM
@24Play
Probably many, Myself included. Considering my upbringing tough, had I not been gay I'd probably turn out to be a bigot myself.
Posted by: Butter | Feb 27, 2008 3:18:17 PM
Interesting. I never knew that my ex-boyfriend's drug dealer was also a championship kickboxer. I was just use to him selling drugs while he bartended at our local pub.
Posted by: Josh | Feb 27, 2008 3:24:55 PM
Stay classy, Josh.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 27, 2008 3:29:00 PM
ATLSTEVE: You are giving William Fuckwad Buckley far too much credit. He was an extremely intelligent man who, as a commentator and an writer, was noted for his command of the English language. In the quote regarding tattooing people with HIV, Buckley was not expressing a desire to protect homosexuals or injection drug users. He didn't give a rat's ass about either group. He was simply fear mongering. That quote was intending to give the impression that people with HIV were psychopaths, intent on infecting others, and that a tattoo would help everyone else protect themselves.
And if you think for one moment that William F. Buckley gave a hoot about faggots, consider this quote from Buckley, directed at Gore Vidal after Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" during a debate over the actions of Chicago policemen: "Now, listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."
Still wanna give Buckley the benefit of the doubt, ATLSTEVE?
Posted by: peterparker | Feb 27, 2008 3:29:47 PM
I was simply responding to an isolated quote taken out of context...not to get into a pissing contest with anyone.
There are far worse enemies of the gay community than William F. Buckley.
Posted by: ATLSteve | Feb 27, 2008 3:42:59 PM
Re: homophobic foster parents
Why would you knowingly want to subject a child to bigots? I say bravo for the U.K.. If respect and common decency are to much for these "christian" foster parents to handle, then the last thing I would want is for them to be receiving my hard earned money to raise more bigots. Not to mention what if a gay child was placed in their care.
My father was a nasty bigot; I would hate to see any child knowingly subjected to that kind of life. It took me 30 years to come to terms with my sexuality. Sure I am happy and well adjusted now but a lot of good years were waisted being angry and scared.
Posted by: jzn | Feb 27, 2008 3:59:01 PM
"Isn't taking away children from parents because they oppose homosexuality just as bad as taking away children from parents because they are homosexual?"
No. Homosexuals have been shown to be good parents to kids straight and gay. These folks obviously wouldn't be.
It's sort of the old argument that fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality are equivalent to homosexuals who disagree with them. The two are not at all comparable. On one side you have an opinion; on the other, a life. Hasn't it been demonstrated that homophobia is harmful to children? Do we condone ex-gay therapies? Why put children at risk?
Posted by: Kevinvt | Feb 27, 2008 4:06:11 PM
ATLSTEVE -- The issue is not whether there are worse homophobes than Buckley, the issue is that he died today, and should be remembered not as some great enlightened intellect, but for his divisive and fear-spewing rhetoric. He deserves to die in shame.
And...since you're so concerned about context, don't forget that being gay and HIV+ in 1986 was nothing like it is today. Few understood the disease transmissions. Queers were routinely bashed, literally and figuratively, for spreading the "gay cancer." Buckley's suggestion to tattoo all carriers seemed (and still does to folks who know history) much like the dehumanizing methods for tracking "undesirables" in Nazi Germany.
However, let's let the man speak for himself. Perhaps you will be won over by the cheap rhetorical flourishes behind which he cowers to hide his bigotry. I am not, and am glad the man is dead. I only wish it had happened sooner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crucial Steps in Combating the Aids Epidemic; Identify All the Carriers
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
I have read and listened, and I think now that I can convincingly crystallize the thoughts chasing about in the minds of, first, those whose concern with AIDS victims is based primarily on a concern for them and for the maintenance of the most rigid standards of civil liberties and personal privacy, and, second, those whose anxiety to protect the public impels them to give subordinate attention to the civil amenities of those who suffer from AIDS and primary attention to the safety of those who do not.
Arguments used by both sides are sometimes utilitarian, sometimes moral, sometimes a little of each - and almost always a little elusive. Most readers will locate their own inclinations and priorities somewhere other than in the polar positions here put forward by design.
School A suspects, in the array of arguments of School B, a venture in ethical opportunism. Look, they say, we have made enormous headway in the matter of civil rights for all, dislodging the straight-laced from mummified positions they inherited through eclectic superstitions ranging from the Bible's to Freud's. A generation ago, homosexuals lived mostly in the closet. Nowadays they take over cities and parade on Halloween and demand equal rights for themselves qua homosexuals, not merely as apparently disinterested civil libertarians.
Along comes AIDS, School A continues, and even though it is well known that the virus can be communicated by infected needles, known also that heterosexuals can transmit the virus, still it is both a fact and the popular perception that AIDS is the special curse of the homosexual, transmitted through anal sex between males. And if you look hard, you will discern that little smirk on the face of the man oh-so-concerned about public health. He is looking for ways to safeguard the public, sure, but he is by no means reluctant, in the course of doing so, to sound an invidious tocsin whose clamor is a call to undo all the understanding so painfully cultivated over a generation by those who have fought for the privacy of their bedroom. What School B is really complaining about is the extension of civil rights to homosexuals.
School A will not say all that in words quite so jut-jawed, but it plainly feels that no laws or regulations should be passed that have the effect of identifying the AIDS carrier. It isn't, School A concedes, as if AIDS were transmitted via public drinking fountains. But any attempt to segregate the AIDS carrier is primarily an act of moral ostracism.
School B does in fact tend to disapprove forcefully of homosexuality, but tends to approach the problem of AIDS empirically. It argues that acquired immune deficiency syndrome is potentially the most serious epidemic to have shown its face in this century. Summarizing currently accepted statistics, the Economist recently raised the possibility ''that the AIDS virus will have killed more than 250,000 Americans in eight years' time.'' Moreover, if the epidemic extended to that point, it would burst through existing boundaries. There would then be ''no guarantee that the disease will remain largely confined to groups at special risk, such as homosexuals, hemophiliacs and people who inject drugs intravenously. If AIDS were to spread through the general population, it would become a catastrophe.'' Accordingly, School B says, we face a utilitarian imperative, and this requires absolutely nothing less than the identification of the million-odd people who, the doctors estimate, are carriers. How? Well, the military has taken the first concrete step. Two million soldiers will be given the blood test, and those who have AIDS will be discreetly discharged Discreetly, you say!
Hold on. I'm coming to that. You have the military making the first massive move designed to identify AIDS sufferers - and, bear in mind, an AIDS carrier today is an AIDS carrier on the day of his death, which day, depending on the viral strain, will be two years from now or when he is threescore and 10. The next logical step would be to require of anyone who seeks a marriage license that he present himself not only with a Wassermann test but also an AIDS test.
But if he has AIDS, should he then be free to marry?
Only after the intended spouse is advised that her intended husband has AIDS, and agrees to sterilization. We know already of children born with the disease, transmitted by the mother, who contracted it from the father.
What then would School B suggest for those who are not in the military and who do not set out to get a marriage license? Universal testing?
Yes, in stages. But in rapid stages. The next logical enforcer is the insurance company. Blue Cross, for instance, can reasonably require of those who wish to join it a physical examination that requires tests. Almost every American, making his way from infancy to maturity, needs to pass by one or another institutional turnstile. Here the lady will spring out, her right hand on a needle, her left on a computer, to capture a blood specimen.
Is it then proposed by School B that AIDS carriers should be publicly identified as such?
The evidence is not completely in as to the communicability of the disease. But while much has been said that is reassuring, the moment has not yet come when men and women of science are unanimously agreed that AIDS cannot be casually communicated. Let us be patient on that score, pending any tilt in the evidence: If the news is progressively reassuring, public identification would not be necessary. If it turns in the other direction and AIDS develops among, say, children who have merely roughhoused with other children who suffer from AIDS, then more drastic segregation measures would be called for.
But if the time has not come, and may never come, for public identification, what then of private identification?
Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.
You have got to be kidding! That's exactly what we suspected all along! You are calling for the return of the Scarlet Letter, but only for homosexuals!
Answer: The Scarlet Letter was designed to stimulate public obloquy. The AIDS tattoo is designed for private protection. And the whole point of this is that we are not talking about a kidding matter. Our society is generally threatened, and in order to fight AIDS, we need the civil equivalent of universal military training.
William F. Buckley Jr., editor of the National Review, is author, most recently, of ''Right Reason.'' His syndicated column appears locally in The New York Daily News.
Posted by: DC Guy | Feb 27, 2008 4:13:12 PM
"Ding Dong The Witch is dead.
Which old Witch?
The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up -you sleepy head,
rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead.
She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below.
Yo-ho,
let's open up and sing
and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh,
sing it high,
sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!"
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 27, 2008 4:15:46 PM
This is the first time I have ever agreed with anything David Ehrenstein has had to say. Ding dong indeed. Let the singing begin.
Posted by: lonnie | Feb 27, 2008 4:24:39 PM
Well, everything else seems insignificant when you consider the sun is going to turn us into charcoal.
Posted by: Tug | Feb 27, 2008 4:36:26 PM
It should be pointed out that scientists have been debating the fate of the Earth for years, and it is not so much that they have made any conclusions as it is they are taking sides. The UK study mentioned is not definitive by any means, though it extends the timescale past the previous limits of study.
Like Goldwater, Buckley grew more libertarian as he got older. The notion that older sins are more pressing than any subsequent reform smacks of retribution. Likewise, contemporary conservatives have become increasingly nutty. Gone are the days when they could debate rationally. He was one of the few men who could verbally constrain Bush/Cheney on the Right and get some respect, leaving us only wanna-bes like George Will and Andrew Sullivan. And you know they aren't going to listen to anyone on the Left.
Posted by: anon | Feb 27, 2008 4:42:17 PM
Buckley repeated his belief about tattooing people with AIDS in 2005:
"Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration."
Posted by: JeffNYC | Feb 27, 2008 4:50:41 PM
Anon -- find me a verifiable quote from Buckley specifically repudiating his 1986 stance on HIV patients, and I'll be glad to reconsider my so-called "retribution." I appreciate the flattery, but frankly doubt anything said on this site will affect his legacy as much as you seem to believe.
As far as his "subsequent reform," the man certainly owned up to mistakes about other bigotries, like opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which once found him standing philosophically with the likes of Strom Thurmond and Bull Connor. But, as far as I know, he never apologized for his proposals to treat sick people like so much livestock to be branded and led to the slaughterhouse.
For someone heralded as so intelligent, Buckley seemed remarkably devoid of compassion or circumspection.
Posted by: DC Guy | Feb 27, 2008 5:11:00 PM
The thing is, putting aside legal, ethical, medical, and logistical complications, I would bet that a lot of sexually active HIV negative men would not be opposed to Buckley's suggestion, particularly if it were in a discreet place visible only when completely naked.
Whereas, quite understandably, HIV positive men would strongly object.
Posted by: anon | Feb 27, 2008 6:14:03 PM
Many thanks to those who not only dug up the original homohating statements in context but remembered that the prissy neo-fascist freak with the compulsively darting tug and eyes [how MUCH more symbolic could one get? SSSSSSSSSSSS].
Fags like ALTSTEVE, and Reagan Worshipper Cyd "Outsports" Ziegler are as much a part of the reason we are still second class citizens as Buckley and Reagan were themselves. "Oh, they aren't really bad; don't really hate us....blah blah fucking blah!"
If we're going to see first class citizenship in our lifetimes it's going to take more than just the election of any new President. We have to adopt a take no bullshit, take no prisoners attitude! Need a contemporary concrete example? How about the the gay kid in Ft. Lauderdale shot to death a few days ago—one year to the month after basketball All Star spewed on an area radio station:
"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."
Off of the blogs and into the streets the next time this happens!
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 27, 2008 6:14:30 PM
And here's another Buckley gem, this one from the obit in the Washington Post:
"He feuded bitterly with the writer Gore Vidal, and in a live appearance on ABC television at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi."
Buckley answered: "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face."
Posted by: jmg | Feb 27, 2008 6:20:41 PM
Correction: "remembered that the prissy neo-fascist freak ... reiterated the suggestion for INVOLUNTARY tattooing three years ago."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 27, 2008 6:24:27 PM
Fucking hated that jackass Republican Buckley. The worst part of it was that he used to introduce the PBS' presentation of "Brideshead Revisited" in the 80s. Evelyn Waugh's beloved gay novel introduced by this homophobic moron--SO GLAD The bastard is dead.
Posted by: Ray | Feb 27, 2008 6:31:15 PM
You know, I don't see anything in this article about how Rod now turns tricks and crystal meth from his slummy midtown "loft" on Peachtree across from Bulldogs Bar. He may have destroyed his opponents in the boxing ring, but I have seen him destroy way too many lives in Atlanta with drugs. He almost destroyed mine, but I was strong and courageous enough to fight back and KO the problem.
Posted by: Baffled | Feb 27, 2008 7:03:19 PM
@MT, 24PLAY
Our society is such that adoptive and foster parents are held to much higher standards than natural birth parents. You think Britney or Fed-ex would ever be allowed to adopt or foster kids? Yet, despite everything about them, the courts will still give them every opportunity to regain/maintain custody of their biological children, plus allow them to conceive more.
Posted by: RJ | Feb 27, 2008 7:23:21 PM
Bravo to the UK for insisting on foster parents that are not ignorant or bigoted (at least on this subject). I heard about a foster parent here in WA state who called to "return" her "faggot" mentally retarded child because he "plays with dolls and sits when he pees." Fortunately, WA state removed the boy and her foster license.
WA's licensing program treats homosexuality as normal, but does not have a litmus test like the UK's (or at least that Council's interpretation).
Posted by: David R. | Feb 27, 2008 7:27:25 PM
Oh goody, Madonna's new album has a name!
Who cares who William F. Buckley was? He's dead!
MADONNA RULES!
Posted by: Chad | Feb 27, 2008 8:59:11 PM
touch my body....
Posted by: Matt | Feb 27, 2008 9:11:25 PM
I wonder if those here who have a problem with denying anti-gay people as foster parents (as opposed to taking away their children as some here have mistated) would also feel that it would be inappropriate to consider an individual's or couple's racism when deciding whether or not to accept them as foster parents? Of course people know the race of a child when they put them in the care of foster parents so they could avoid placing a child with a couple who was racist or anti-Semitic whereas any given child placed into the care of anti-gay people could turn out to be gay.
24play, I find your comment about how many of us were raised by homophobic parents to be very strange. Are you actually saying that since many of us were physically, emotionally and/or pyschologically abused by our natural parents but turned out OK after YEARS of pain and rehabilitation it's OK to subject foster kids to the same even though we could avoid it? That is either incredibly thoughtless or incredibly heartless. I'm hoping you just didn't think that through before you posted it.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 27, 2008 11:28:09 PM
Re: Buckley. If anyone hears how Gore Vidal comments about the loss of Buckley, followed so soon after the death of Norman Mailer, I'd love to hear about it posted on this site. Vidal has outlived his enemies, that must be sweet.
Re: Sinead hating on Kylie. Didn't they do a "Sweet dreams" tribute to Dave Stewart together on stage w/ N. Imbroglia? Where'd the love go, sisters? Sinead is awesome. "Big bunch of junkie lies" off her last album Theology is terrific.
Posted by: Daniel | Feb 27, 2008 11:43:26 PM
Zeke,
I just think it's impractical—as well as unfair, and just plain wrong—to impose any type of ideological litmus test on prospective foster parents. We yell bloody murder when gays or lesbians are forbidden to adopt, as well we should. Given that ongoing battle, do we really want to support the banning of other types of people simply based on beliefs or lifestyles that we don't completely agree with?
No parents are perfect, the need for foster parents is dire, and state agencies already have elaborate screening processes that weed out unsuitable applicants based on a variety of lifestyle and behavioral factors.
If we start adding litmus tests for ideological factors that don't have a clinical record of having significant risk of negatively affecting the well-being of kids, where would it stop? Traditional Indian families believe in arranged marriages. Should they be flatly rejected? Observant Muslims may not offer female children the same opportunities that male children would have? Should all Muslims be rejected? Fundamentalist Christians believe in Creation? Should they be rejected? How about Communists? Nudists? Vegans? Wiccans? How about atheists? Many people in this country would be opposed to foster children being raised in homes where those beliefs, philosophies, or lifestyles are embraced.
I think if you're going to ban people from foster parenting, it should be based on behaviors or lifestyles that have a strong record of being detrimental to kids' well-being, not just on holding ideas or beliefs that fall outside the mainstream. Kids are incredibly resilient, and most will eventually challenge their parents' beliefs and develop their own.
And let's not forget that foster families are regularly observed by social workers. If strong anti-gay bias becomes apparent—perhaps as a child begins to shows signs of being gender variant—and seems to be adversely affecting well-being, a child can be removed and a better placement found.
Finally, did you click through to the linked story? The couple being denied has had 20 foster kids in their care over the past 12 years, and by all accounts has done a fine job of raising them. There is a need for 8,000 additional foster homes in the UK. Do we really want to tell this couple that they're unfit to raise any more kids just because of their Christian beliefs? Read their comments in the article. I disagree with their beliefs, but they seem to be reasonable, fair, and loving. I don't think a kid in their care who began to realize he or she was gay would face abuse or hardship. And if one did, they would certainly have options—far more options than kids living with their biological parents would have.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 28, 2008 12:26:21 AM
Its certainly crucial to provide security and love for all your kids (which the woman said she did) but its not enough. Gay kids need to know, early on, that they’re OK, they’re not alone, and there’s nothing wrong with them. Telling them you love them but they’re unnatural and have to change, or that the God they’ve been raised to believe in finds them repugnant is driving gay kids to high rates of depression and suicide. What’s worse still is for the same Christians to then use the fact that young gays have high rates of depression and suicide as evidence that being gay is bad and harmful. No, what’s harmful is growing up in a toxic society.
Young gays still must contend with powerful and pervasive homophobic and heterophilic societal forces. And that’s why its important to know that foster parents will affirm to their 10 year old if she comes and says she might be gay, that its perfectly ok.
Posted by: Pete | Feb 28, 2008 12:54:27 AM
I'm pretty sure that if anyone took the time to do a clinical study of the anti-gay beliefs of parents on gay children we would find that such an environment has a "strong record of being detrimental to kids". It would certainly find that there is a "significant risk for negatively affecting the well-being of kids".
I don't think we have to have clinical studies to know the long term harm done to gay kids by well meaning anti-gay parents; we hear horror stories every day. Suicides, "ex-gay" therapies bursting at the seams, gays in unhappy "straight marriages", closeted men getting caught in bathroom sex stings, etc. I don't think I've EVER heard of a person in any of the categories above who had parents who were supportive of their sexuality. In fact I would bet that virtually all people listed above had specifically non-supportive parents.
Additionally, It's a bit difficult to base protecting kids on the lack of clinical studies that prove their vulnerability when no one seems to be interested in, concerned about or motivated to do the studies that might provide such clinical evidence. Ask any research scientist/psychologist or therapist about why there is so little research done on issues of gay interest. They'll tell you it's because they fear that they'll lose their funding because anyone who releases a study that is supportive of gay people or that suggests that homosexuality might be innate is targeted by religious and/or anti-gay groups to have their funding dropped. Scientists would rather avoid the fight and concentrate on studies that don't generate so much controversy. Meantime anti-gay religious people continue to fight our legal and social integration based on their religious belief that we are choosing an immoral lifestyle.
Anyway, I doubt you could find a clinical psychologist in America (outside of the NARTH ex-gay industry quacks) who would say that gay children are not harmed by anti-gay parents.
I'm not advocating taking a child away from a natural parent (unless they are found to be abusive), I'm just saying that certain things such as racism and anti-gay beliefs should be factors that are considered when deciding whether or not a person or couple is qualified to participate a the foster care program.
On a lighter note: I wonder how long it will take for the Pat Robertson of England to blame the gays for the earthquake that hit there yesterday?
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 28, 2008 1:32:12 AM
As far as the UK denying the prospective parents based on if they approve of homosexuality. Let's look at it like this. Would you give a KKK member a child that has a 1 in 10 chance of being black?
Posted by: AJ | Feb 28, 2008 1:48:52 AM
Exactly, Zeke. Racism and anti-gay bigotry should be FACTORS considered when making foster placements. They should not be litmus tests.
It would be pretty damn hard to find foster parents without the slightest hint of racism in the US. Degree is everything. The people who make these evaluations for the state are best qualified to determine whether or not an individual or family is likely to provide a healthy environment for a child—and also to make recommendations as to which kids might be the best fit.
Nobody, not natural parents, foster parents, or the state, can guarantee a child a risk-free environment. You can only minimize the risks.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 28, 2008 9:42:34 AM
Regarding William F. Buckley Jr.'s death: Good riddance to bad rubbish. Nobody was more impressed by William F. Buckley Jr. than he himself was. What a pompous, bigoted, self-important blow-hard, gas-bag. I don't believe in respecting the dead when they did nothing in life to be respectful of.
Posted by: Brad | Feb 28, 2008 11:16:39 AM
Since we're right near the end of Black History month, it has me thinking that someday when there is a nationally recognized Gay History month, when we're celebrated instead of only "accepted," history will look back on things like The Equality Act as unquestionable victories in the fight for the future.
Posted by: Aman Chaudhary | Feb 29, 2008 7:14:17 AM
Hey Madonna's new single JUST LEAKED IN HQ! This song is AWESOME! I LOOOOVE IT! You can get the MP3 song "Madonna feat. Justin - 4 Minutes.mp3" in great quality (HQ) in this blog:
http://popmusickingdom.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jking | Mar 4, 2008 12:30:49 AM
Recent Comments