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

[Solly]

"Gays do not need to have sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite gender in order to have a child of their own. This is the 21st century now, not the 19th century. Catch up with the rest of us."

I thought the point of homosexuality was that it was nature rebelling about over-population and that it allowed you lot to provide help to your sisters in the bringing up of their kids. If gays can now have kids, is there hence no reason for it?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I thought the point of homosexuality was that it was nature rebelling about over-population and that it allowed you lot to provide help to your sisters in the bringing up of their kids. If gays can now have kids, is there hence no reason for it?

/me feeds troll

Over-pop controls usually consist of increasing stress due to increasing contact over a certain optimum point, manifesting in various ways. But I've never heard of homosexuality being a stress-symptom.

Then again, there's no point in having humans in the 1st place, so does there need to be a reason? I think, therefore I am?

[Solly]

"so does there need to be a reason?"

For it to be arriving with the regularity it does, you would have to assume that it provided evolutionary benefits at some point.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Gays do not need to have sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite gender in order to have a child of their own. This is the 21st century now, not the 19th century. Catch up with the rest of us."

I thought the point of homosexuality was that it was nature rebelling about over-population and that it allowed you lot to provide help to your sisters in the bringing up of their kids. If gays can now have kids, is there hence no reason for it?

I don't believe in the argument that homosexuality helps alleviate overpopulation, so I'm not sure who else you have been arguing with, that presented that argument, and I can't be arsed to go back and read all the posts here.

[Theben]

No you don't. Not all evolutionary changes are beneficial. Some are neutral, and some are malign. Malign ones tend to die off unless the environment changes, allowing the malign alteration to become beneficial. Think moths and coal dust.
Neutral ones just continue to pop up now and then, usually a non-fatal recessive trait in the species.

[Solly]

"Neutral ones just continue to pop up now and then, usually a non-fatal regressive trait in the species."

Regressive, huh...

[Theben]

Yeah, I knew you were going to target that one word. I meant recessive. You're so predictable.

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

"discrimination" != "discrimination based on some specific factor" !!! They are completely seperate concpets.

All discrimination is based on specific factors.

[Berzerker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

Well then, I guess because they will face adversity, we should force mandatory sterilization on Blacks, Hispanics, and Indians, just so little white children won't make fun of them. After all, they aren't as fit parents because their children will face adversity.

Is that an admission unwanted children adopted by homosexuals generally face greater adversity than if they were adopted by heterosexuals? It would be nice if you can make that admission before throwing strawmen into the debate to hide behind. And it isn't about the parents being fit, they cannot control how others treat their children when away from home. This is about finding suitable homes for unwanted children, not subjecting them to unnecessary adversity just so homosexuals can be parents. Btw, your strawman not only requires that adoption qualify as a freedom (it doesn't), but that freedom be violated in the name of eliminating adversity.

Sometimes I like throwing bombs. It would be interesting to see a report of gay families abusing their children. You rank conservatives would be jumping all over it to show what danger children are in from homosexuals.

I'm not a conservative, but what does all that have to do with the fact your bombshell is illogical? You might as well make some inane point about more heterosexuals dying or living than homosexuals...well duh.

Since you don't offer these examples up as evidence, one must conclude that the either so rare they slip under the radar or they don't happen at all. This would lead one to induce that, children are disproportionately more likely to abuse in a mixed-sex home than in a single-sex parent home. It's just "common sense," right?

Now I have to run around the internet looking for studies when all you can offer is that it would be interesting to see a study that supports your assertion? Btw, you didn't say children were disproportionately abused in heterosexual households, you said more children were abused in those households. Gee, I'll join you out on that limb.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Is that an admission unwanted children adopted by homosexuals generally face greater adversity than if they were adopted by heterosexuals?

I have no problem making this admission -- simply because it is still socially acceptable to be a bigoted homophobic.

So note, the adversity children suffer when taken care of by adoptive gay parents is not the fault of the gay parents.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

No he hasn't and you've proved yourself a total moron once again.

One can accept sorting by some factors and not by others and there is no contradiction.

So what? Just because your factors are not shared by everyone else doesn't mean only your discrimination is legitimate. You haven't even tried to show the rationale behind this law is based on invalid factors, so why is it unjustified discrimination (as opposed to your discrimination which I guess is always justified)?

I wonder how you have the gall to post of the obviously stupid rubbish you come up with. Anyone who reads this thread will see that you are mistaken about what is a trivial and commonsense issue.

Aside from merely acknowledging what I said, that we all discriminate based on factors we consider valid, what have you proven aside from how tolerant and compassionate you are? Btw, several people agree with me, including people who support equal adoption rights for homosexuals. Seriously, your entire post was a bunch of ad hominems and a restatement of what I've said...

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

I have no problem making this admission

Thank you, but watch out for Aggie.

simply because it is still socially acceptable to be a bigoted homophobic.

Like it or not, many children do treat homsexuals and their children, adopted or not, badly. That has to be considered when it comes to adoption...

So note, the adversity children suffer when taken care of by adoptive gay parents is not the fault of the gay parents.

"Fault" is one thing, but I suggest a homosexual child growing up with heterosexual parents or a heterosexual child growing up with homosexual parents does feel a disconnect with their caregivers. And regardless of fault, the fact remains children put in that position will have troubles with other children.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

So what? Just because your factors are not shared by everyone else doesn't mean only your discrimination is legitimate. You haven't even tried to show the rationale behind this law is based on invalid factors, so why is it unjustified discrimination (as opposed to your discrimination which I guess is always justified)?

That's not my point, or Skywalkers'. You accused liberals of being inconsistent in their beliefs. They are not inconsistent. They may well be wrong as you say, but that does not mean they are hypocrites or inconsistent.

[Berzerker]

Chegitz -

I do have to say my opinion of Berz's intellect has fallen somewhat in this thread.

Shall we rehash your flashes of brilliance in this thread? Let's see, you've concluded heterosexual parents are a greater threat to children because more children are abused by heterosexual parents. The fact heterosexual parents far outnumber homosexual parents didn't factor into your argument and when at least 2 people explained that flaw, you offered an interest in finding a study to support your assertion (not actually finding such a study) while demanding I provide proof that children face additional adversity when raised by homosexuals. Doh!

Agathon -

That's not my point, or Skywalkers'. You accused liberals of being inconsistent in their beliefs. They are not inconsistent. They may well be wrong as you say, but that does not mean they are hypocrites or inconsistent.

Can you use the actual quotes?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Berzerker
but I suggest a homosexual child growing up with heterosexual parents or a heterosexual child growing up with homosexual parents does feel a disconnect with their caregivers. And regardless of fault, the fact remains children put in that position will have troubles with other children.

Here's a post from about six pages back, just in case anybody is actually paying attention.

Originally posted by Adam Smith I know at least a half dozen gay and lesbian couples who have adopted children. I see them and their children every Saturday morning at Chinese school, and every month at play group. Based on conversations in the hallway between classes or over a dinner of takeout Chinese, these gay and lesbian parents do face issues that heterosexual parents do not have. Aside from issues of teasing on the playground, these gay and lesbian adoptive parents seem concerned about their ability to provide appropriate gender role models for their adoptive children. This is, in a sense, the reverse of the problem that these gays and lesbians faced growing up with heterosexual parents. The more serious you think that problem is growing up, the more serious it is when applied to your adoptive children.