Florida courts: "You gay people can't adopt children"

[Berzerker]

Ming -

My point was that the issue should revolve around the welfare of the child and not simply a case of bigotry. While I'm sure somebody can come up with NON BIASED research that shows that having a traditional family is better than two same sex parents... I think the same type of non biased study would show that the differences between those two situations would not be all that great, and that either is light years ahead of being under state care.

I'd agree with the last part, but I think the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual environment is too great to ignore or dismiss as unsubstantial.

I want it to come down to looking at the individuals who want to adopt ability to provide a loving enviornment. There are hetrosexual couples who should not be allowed to adopt because they would make terrible parents, just as there are gay couples who fall in the same category. Again, my point was that the decision to allow an adoption should be based on that... and not race, creed, or sexual orientation.

If a qualified black couple wants to adopt a black child, should they be rejected so a qualified white couple can adopt that child? Adoption is about finding a suitable environment for the child, and that means finding an environment the child can relate to the easiest. What if we knew a child was homosexual? Would you rather they be put in the home of a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple? In that case, we no longer have just the plus of being raised in a "traditional" setting, we have the negative created by the conflict homosexual children undoubtedly feel because they are "different" from their parents. That feeling of being out of place is reduced by being placed with a homosexual couple.

[DRoseDARs]

If there were enough married heterosexual couples INTERESTED, WILLING, and ABLE (not possessing physical or mental handicaps that would preclude them from the adoption process) to adopt, then there wouldn't be so many children in need of "suitable homes" whatever definition you wish to use. While you're waiting for these married heterosexual couples to miraculously come out of the woodwork en masse, these children will continue to be shuffled around the system, and some lost in it. If you want to disregard gay couples as capable of providing "suitable homes" then you better start getting more married heterosexual couples to get off their selfish asses and providing "suitable homes."

[Berzerker]

Mad Viking -

Rubbish. "Without the state" there would BE NO MONEY. If you choose to take part in money, you buy into the state system. Money WAS CREATED BY THE STATE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH!

The state did not invent money, people have bartered wealth or symbols of that wealth long before the state entered the picture. Gold, silver, or seashells, it doesn't matter...

When agriculture was adopted, and surplus food was created, government became necessary to store the surplus, and decide who was freed up from tending the fields to do other work and get to eat anyway.

Government did not become necessary for this, and btw, food is wealth is money. "Money" is nothing more than something that has either intrinsic or symbolic value. The state did not create value...

Grow up. All the benefits you enjoy accrue from this system. It is your duty as a citizen to contribute to it.

I don't enjoy any benefits from politicians stealing my money so ADM can put corn in gasoline or impose price supports on sugar, and I sure don't enjoy any benefits from being forced to pay to "educate" a bunch of left wingers who rationalise stealing even more of my money once they graduate. That is one lame excuse for trying to convince me to help you steal from others.

It is patently absurd, and childish, to call taxes "stealing". It is also greedy.

Stealing - taking what belongs to others without their permission. No amount of left wing claptrap can change the meaning of theft, all you can do is make it "legal". So whoopie, join the defenders of legalised slavery and genocide... Btw, it ain't "greed" to refuse your invitation to steal from others.

My prejudice, as a straight married man with two sons, is that gay parents are more likely to be superior parents than straight parents.

Fine, give your kids up for adoption.

I believe they would be better at communicating with their children about prejudice and sexual orientation. I believe that the children growing up would benefit from the adversity they would face from homophobic children, and become more tolerant and understanding of the differences of others in society.

They'll have to because those kids are going to see alot of it from other children at school. But thanks for supporting my argument. You'd throw children who've already led troubled lives into a hostile environment so they can learn from adversity. If that was valid, we'd leave them in state run institutions just to make life harder on them so they'll learn even more.

All of you who think it's better or just as good to place orphans in homosexual homes should read what one of your own just said. Mad Viking not only acknowledges that situation is worse, he wants it to be worse so the kiddies can learn from adversity.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

I have yet to see any proof offered for this assertion.

It's called common sense. The people who've been pushing "Heather Has Two Mommies" etc obviously understand that children in homosexual homes face more "adversity" (as MV puts it) as children in traditional homes. The whole point of those books is to lessen the adversity they face...

Since most children are molested and abused in hetero homes, it stands to reason that children are safer with gay people.

Heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals. You ask for proof of the obvious and throw that bombshell out with no support?

Guynemer -

As an aside, while reading this thread, I am torn between smashing my fist into the monitor and laughing my damn fool ass off.

Progressive tax code as a civil rights violation... what a riot!

Is slavery a civil rights violation? "Progressive" taxes are about confiscating people's labor, but some lose more of their labor than others. That is called "progressive"...

Skywalker -

There is no hypocrisy! NO ONE is talking about "discrimination" - that's STUPID. Discrimination is making a choice based on information. They are rather talking about discrimination based on certain factors - such as race, sexual orientation, or level of income. Each is a SEPERATE case.

You've contradicted yourself (check the bold). And homes run by heterosexual and homosexual couples are a factor when deciding which is better for adopted children. It's called "discrimination" and it is based on information... You think the people behind this law simply threw a dart at a board to arrive at their position?

Molly -

For the former, this is another of your assertions not notceably backed up with any proof.

Fine, ask the people employed in child welfare services if they think homosexual households afford a comparable environment to heterosexual households. Read my comment to chegitz...

What 'other things being equal'?

Environment created by the couple(s) in question.

Parenting certainly doesn't seem to be an innate skill, and I'm unaware that simply being a heterosexual couple magically endows people with the ability to look after their children- if it did, then those homes for unwanted children might be remarkably bare or non-existent by now.

You don't think homosexuals have contributed to unwanted children? And you think homosexuals are magically endowed with the ability to look after children?

[DRoseDARs]

You don't think homosexuals have contributed to unwanted children?

Uh, you wanna explain that one?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Prepare yourself for a shock, but sometimes gays breed.

[Berzerker]

DRoseDars -

If there were enough married heterosexual couples INTERESTED, WILLING, and ABLE (not possessing physical or mental handicaps that would preclude them from the adoption process) to adopt, then there wouldn't be so many children in need of "suitable homes" whatever definition you wish to use. While you're waiting for these married heterosexual couples to miraculously come out of the woodwork en masse, these children will continue to be shuffled around the system, and some lost in it. If you want to disregard gay couples as capable of providing "suitable homes" then you better start getting more married heterosexual couples to get off their selfish asses and providing "suitable homes."

Many couples go abroad to adopt because of the bureaucratic hassle in this country, so I'm not convinced there aren't enough heterosexual couples out there. But if there aren't enough, then and only then should homosexual couples be considered. The goal is to get children out of the system and into permament settings preferably in settings that are the most conducive to a stable environment.

[Berzerker]

Laz dealt with that one

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Prepare yourself for a shock, but sometimes gays breed.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz dealt with that one

Yeah, Rosie O'Donald (aka The Queen of Mean after she killed her twin sister The Queen of Nice and took over her life posing as the REAL Rosie O'Donald) is a gay that bred. Seems to me she's rearing her young. It's rather difficult for gays to breed all willy-nilly like heterosexuals do. We actually have to involve a large amount of time and money in order to succeed in artificial means of pregnancy, much like infertile heterosexuals due. Such determination seems contradictory to the notion of getting pregnant on a whim.

If you're talking about homosexuals who end up marrying members of the opposite sex and having children, only later realizing they might have made a mistake, don't such children remain with one or both parents? They have an absolute responcibility to such children, just like divorced heterosexual parents, alternate arrangements outside of marriage can be made (visitation, joint custody).

If you're talking about teenagers engaging in sex with the opposite gender that results in pregnancy discovering later that they're gay, then that's a similar matter as adults in the same situation. They have an absolute responcibility to such children. But that isn't the issue in this thread. This thread is about allowing gay couples to adopt children who are without parents; who are in the sole guardianship of the state.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

One could say with more confidence:

All other things being equal placing a child in a wealthier home is better for the child.

Yup.

Now, gay couples tend to be better off than hetero couples IIRC.

If true, this positive must still overcome the negatives. Of course, if you had your way wealth would be shared so even rich homosexuals would lose their advantage when it comes to adoption.

DRoseDars - *sigh* Are you trying to dispute that homosexuals have contributed to the population of unwanted children?

This thread is about allowing gay couples to adopt children who are without parents; who are in the sole guardianship of the state.

You brought it up, not me.

[DRoseDARs]

Dancing is fun, isn't it?

You make the assertion "Gays do breed." I respond by asking for YOUR explaination. I provide examples of my own that I could think of while waiting AND I respond to them myself. You tell me I brought it up.

Are you gonna answer my question yet?

No, I'm not disputing its occurance. I named specific examples or scenarios of its occurance. And its occurance has to be fairly small. If it isn't then obviously A LOT of homosexuals feel pressured into the unfair position of choosing between the emotionally damaging lie of heterosexual life (marrying a member of the opposite sex against their TRUE emotions and feelings and having children with them) or being ostrasized by society. Where ever would I get that silly notion...

I'm waiting for your explaination of your comment still...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

You make the assertion "Gays do breed." I respond by asking for YOUR explaination.

If I can answer that one, I think it generally involves a gentleman putting his pee-pee in a lady's tuppence.

[Berzerker]

You make the assertion "Gays do breed." I respond by asking for YOUR explaination. I provide examples of my own that I could think of while waiting AND I respond to them myself. You tell me I brought it up.

I didn't say "Gays do breed".

Are you gonna answer my question yet?

What question?

No, I'm not disputing its occurance. I named specific examples or scenarios of its occurance.

Sounded like you were explaining that these occurances don't happen (ala responsibility etc), but since you agree it does happen, what's the point of continuing down this line? Fact - homosexuals do contribute to the population of unwanted children. You asked me to explain how and Laz did it for me, umkay?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If I can answer that one, I think it generally involves a gentleman putting his pee-pee in a lady's tuppence.

Following your lead: Hey Laz, your username is: Lazarus and the Gimp.

Um, yes. Almost all of us here have knowledge of how sexual reproduction works. Thank you Mr. "States the Already Widely Understood." Glad to see you are contributing useful information.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

A lot of people describing themselves as gay (not Bi) have had sex with the other sex, and not just in adolescent confusion. I've just read an article in the last week about a lesbian couple with kids- they chose to do this with a gay man and using natural methods. No basters involved- they wanted conception to occur from a loving act.

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that Boris on this very forum has said he has had sex with women. Sometimes people experiment without altering their definitioin of their own sexuality.