ForumGarden

I don't want to start some kind of holy war here, seeing as how i just signed up today,but...

Does anyone else find it amazing that two states in the Union can have such Polar opposite views on a topic? I am refering to the state of Texas putting into law that a gay person or couple can NOT host any foster kids. Because the state thinks the Person(s) might pass along their Gay ways as if it were some sort of communicable disease.

And the other to the state of Conneticut where they recently passed a law recognizing gay unions. Good for Conneticut. Shame on Texas.

that was my personal spin on it. I'm sorry about that.

Wolverine wrote: I don't want to start some kind of holy war here, seeing as how i just signed up today,but...

Does anyone else find it amazing that two states in the Union can have such Polar opposite views on a topic? I am refering to the state of Texas putting into law that a gay person or couple can NOT host any foster kids. Because the state thinks the Person(s) might pass along their Gay ways as if it were some sort of communicable disease.

And the other to the state of Conneticut where they recently passed a law recognizing gay unions. Good for Conneticut. Shame on Texas.
Given the higher population of Fundamentalist Thinking Christians in Texas, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Guess those Texan's are fixin' to fix the world...as they see it needs fixin'.

I'm a gay rights advocate so, yes, I think it's a shame 'they' think homeless children should be raised as bigots just like 'them'.

Why should these children just not go to the best person or people for them? I'd rather see a gay couple take in a foster child than a straight couple if the gay couple would be better for the particular child. Vice versa too. The best interest of the child should be the main issue, not the foster parents sexual preference.