ebonlock | Not that I'd planned to move to Texas and take in a foster child, but...

The Texas STate House just approved legislation to ban homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents:

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual."

And a little part of me dies each time an inane response like this isn't followed up with: "And why is that, exactly? Can you offer us some proof that homosexuals and bisexuals are intrinsically unfit to act as foster parents?"

*sigh*

Allow me to share a few great responses via Metafilter:

Since the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual, I think ONLY homosexuals should be allowed to be foster parents.
posted by luriete

Because if there's anything adult gay and bisexual men and women like to do in their spare time, more than anything else, it's buggering their foster kids in the state of Texas. When the Texas Tourism Board prints "foster child buggery and 110+ degree weather" on their travel brochures, this state has no one to blame but itself.
posted by AlexReynolds

*reads Leviticus*

*wonders why the fundies aren't quite as pissed about shellfish.*

*reminds self, that won't get anyone elected*
posted by Freen

Maybe, but judging simply by time spent, it would seem that G-d is far more preoccupied with bacon cheeseburgers and cotton-nylon shirts.

After all, if G-d refers to homosexuality at all in the Bible, it's only in very oblique terms, while kosher laws and other commandments Christians today ignore are iterated in painstaking detail.

The only place where G-d refers to homosexuality directly is in Leviticus 20:13. Interestingly, though, the book of Leviticus is so named for the tribe of Levi, because it's a book of rules for priests. Moreover, the context of the chapter makes it clear that what is being banned is not homosexuality per se, so much as it is a particular cult that once existed in Palestine, that of Molech.

Some others have interpreted the story of Sodom & Gemorrah as G-d's punishment for homosexuals. It is from this interpretation that we have the term "sodomy," a word so broad in English usage that even monogamous, vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman might be called sodomy if it isn't in the missionary position. However, this interpretation is rather recent. Josephus claimed their sin was pride; in the Talmud, it is cruelty and greed, as in the Midrash. The Prophet Jeremaiah implies that their sin had something to do with adultery, deceit or other, generalized "wickedness." Ezekiel quite explicitly states that Sodom's sin was pride and a failure to aid "the poor and needy."

Jesus only refers to homosexuality if we accept the novel interpretation of Sodom and Gemorrah adopted by fundamentalist Christians in contradiction to the Bible's teachings; even in this interpretation, though, the only thing Jesus has to say on the subject is--repeatedly--that the Last Day will render far harsher judgements on various religious leaders who look after their own wealth and political power by sowing intolerance and bigotry with a deceitful interpretation of G-d's Scriptures.

Hmmm....
posted by jefgodesky

I had a friend who spent most of her teenage years in foster care. The sexual abuse that she had experienced at home was so bad that it took her a long time to realize that the (less severe) sexual abuse she experienced in foster care was not, in fact, "normal."

For foster care to really work, the qualifications of foster parents need to relate in a genuine way to their ability to care for children, particularly the type of vulnerable children that come into the foster care program. I have never heard of a credible study that links sexual preference (either homo- or heterosexual) to parenting ability, although there are several credible studies that refute such a link.

Excluding gay people from foster care on the basis that they are somehow intrinsically unable to parent because of their sexuality has a doubly negative effect on foster care: first, it limits the pool of available foster parents; and second, it creates a false "qualification" for parenting that could make the screening of heterosexual parents less rigorous.

The article also mentions that some of Texas's child services will be privatized. This seems rather disturbing: private business works because of profits. What type of profits can be made from providing foster care? What are the implications for children in a private system?
posted by carmen