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

[Theben]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

raising your kids with liberal ideals will make them join the Taleban

Great. Now you're making fun of my name.

OTOH, it sounds like a good organization for me to found.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
AS, not to dismiss your aquaintences concerns, but what are appropriate gender role models supposed to be?It's a valid concern in the context of our heterosexist society, but I don't see why we should have gender roles at all. What should being male or female have to do with your place in society?

I probably should have termed it "gender issues" instead of "gender roles".

For example, some of the earliest girls adopted form China are getting to the age where "I sorta like him, does he sorta like me" and "What does it mean when boys do this" begin to become issues. I also remember one particular extended discussion with a gay couple who were in our adoption class about why their daughter feels intimidated by boys in math class.

As I said in the original post, the general rule seems to be that whatever issues gays and lesbians had in being raised by their heterosexual parents appear to run in reverse when they in turn raise (presumably) heterosexual children.

In another vein, how many lesbian couples adopt girls instead of boys, and what does that say about the importance of various gender issues? I am in no position to judge this, since about 98 percent of Chinese adoptees are girls.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Hey, Mr. Strawman... since there isn't any empirical evidence that homosexual couples are less suitable as parents than heterosexual ones as a group, then this is just one big steaming pile of poo as an argument. The "less preferable" situations notion is precisely what is being debated.

It isn't just the ability of the parents to raise children, it's about how children relate to their caregivers and other people like their schoolmates. Even if you could find a homosexual couple more qualified than everyone else in the world to raise children, those adopted children would still have to face schoolmates who are antagonistic because of the identity of the caregivers, and there would still be a disconnect between heterosexual children and homosexual parents just as there would be a disconnect between homosexual children and heterosexual parents. Adoption is about finding the environment most suitable (conducive) for children to fit into... Hell, some on your side of this (Mad Viking, Drogue, Mr Fun) have acknowledged these problems, so why do you call it a strawman?

chegitz -

What part of disproprotionately don't you understand. If (pulling numbers out of my ass) 97% of all families are heterosexual and the 99% of the children who are abused are abused in such families, then children face a greater danger in such families.

You didn't say "disproportionally", you said more children were abused in heterosexual households. After we corrected your flaw, you changed your assertion to the above. And while you demand I offer studies for my conclusions, you have not offered studies to support yours.

Sava -

the fact is, sexual orientation has jack**** to do with a person's ability to raise a child...

That is a strawman even if true, it's about the child and how they relate to their surroundings, not the caregiver intentions.

Mr Fun - Calling it a strawman is far easier than showing why.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What part of disproprotionately don't you understand. If (pulling numbers out of my ass) 97% of all families are heterosexual and the 99% of the children who are abused are abused in such families, then children face a greater danger in such families. Now here's the thing. The only instance of gays absing a child I have ever heard of was the two guys who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered a boy. Given the frequency with which conservatives jump all over single instances and try to make generalizations (remember how raising your kids with liberal ideals will make them join the Taleban, because one person did?), if your radio talk show hosts aren't flagellating gay parents with this crap, then I must assume it's because it is disproportionately rare.

Yep, you ARE pulling numbers out of your ass there. How do you know that the two numbers aren't flipped? More than that, I highly doubt there are enough gay families for any numbers to be statistically significant.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

I think these are the ones:

Thank you. I wasn't denying I accused liberals of hypocrisy, I was asking Agathon to use the actual quotes, i.e., put his critque (with support) in context, instead of offering an unrelated quote and leaving it up to me to track down the quotes. Furthermore, Agathon didn't refute my charge, he simply said it wasn't hypocrisy.

The central mistake you've repeatedly made in this thread is to talk about "liberals" being against "discrimination" as if it meant they are against any form of discrimination per se, when in fact the term is usually understood to mean being against some specific form of discrimination made clear by context, e.g. based on race, age, gender, or some other factor considered irrelevant - in this case, sexual orientation.

If someone decries discrimination, it's their job to remain consistent. Telling me liberals oppose discrimination except when they want to discriminate is Now, liberals claim their desire to discriminate is justified. So what? Their "justification" is subjective class warfare BS. The people who understand that the goal of adoption is to find environments most conducive to unwanted children have their justifications too, and they aren't entirely subjective or irrational. Liberals condemn discrimination only when they don't like the discrimination. But they justify discrimination when they like it... That is hypocrisy... Try using that "logic" on other issues and it should become apparent even to ideologues. Is murder okay only when liberals want to murder? If you want the state to treat people equally, grabbing more money from one group than from others violates that principle...Hypocrisy...

In a similar way, when people speak of being against "prejudice" it is usually understood from the context that they mean "prejudice based on race", not that they are against any and all preconceived opinions.

Yes, prejudice they don't like, not prejudice they do like.

Anyway, that's why "liberals" are not, as you claimed, being hypocrites for holding these two positions.

Sure they are, they just want to pick who gets discriminated against just like most everyone else. The bone of contention is that liberals don't alway agree with their opponents who should be discriminated against.

Well, in light of the fact that no one has been able offer any good reason why gays would be worse parents than anyone else, the discrimination appears unjustified.

*sigh* You can retrieve quotes but can't read the thread to see what arguments have been offered? It isn't so much the parents ability although that is a factor, it's how children relate to their surroundings. If two equally qualified couples, one black, one white, want to adopt a black child, which couple do you think would be better for that child?

The only reasons I've seen so far are completely unsupported, subjective notions about gender roles and parenting, and dire laments over the possibility of playground taunts. (Did it occur to anyone that the playground taunts will go away when gay parents are no longer stigmatized?)

Even if playground taunts were non-existent (a fiction as of today, hence "Heather Has Two Mommies"), "gender" roles etc are not unsupported or subjective. Why do so many homosexual children try to hide their orientation from their heterosexual parents. Obviously an adopted heterosexual child won't try to hide that, but that doesn't mean they will feel as comfortable with their situation as they would with heterosxual parents. And if you dismiss that by blaming homophobic parents, that is still a reality you have to deal with. Would you prefer a homosexual child be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual couple?

On the other hand, we have a track record of gays successfully parenting, whose children show no unusual rates of homosexuality or problems relating to their parents' genders. Berzerker, we went over all this before (including quotes from studies) about three years ago, in this very forum.

Yes we did, but how did you conclude there were no problems?
When did you tell your parents about your sexuality? How did you feel? Nervous? Obviously many homosexual children do feel very anxious about dealing with that situation, some even commit suicide because they are "different". The heterosexual child probably won't feel the need to go to that extreme, but they will still feel "different" from their homosexual parents.

Good heavens, reading this thread you'd think that gays were in some enormous way different than everyone else. Newsflash: they ain't.

If you had been reading through the thread you would have addressed our arguments with more than "there are no problems" when there obviously are.

[Ned]

IMHO, gays have no "right" to adopt kids. Society has every right to legislate in favor of families.

Also, the more gays press this issue, the more likely they are to polarize the US into greater intollerance.

[MrFun]

First, a thumbs up for mindseye's excellent posts.

Originally posted by Berzerker

If someone decries discrimination, it's their job to remain consistent. Telling me liberals oppose discrimination except when they want to discriminate is Now, liberals

Berzerker, when you learn how the real world works, you will discover that no political group or advocacy group are 100% consistent with their principles -- that would mean those people are perfect, and since there is no such thing as perfect people in the real world, liberals should not be tarred and feathered for inconsistency.

Let us know when you join the real world -- we will be interested in seeing how much you learn.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
IMHO, gays have no "right" to adopt kids. Society has every right to legislate in favor of families.

Also, the more gays press this issue, the more likely they are to polarize the US into greater intollerance.

Yeah -- just like those damn blacks got all uppity in the 1950s and 1960s for protesting disfranchisement and Jim Crow laws. How dared they polarize the rest of American society.

[Ned]

Mr. Fun, you then deny that society has a right to favor families?

[MrFun]

Homosexuals CAN establish stable families, Ned.

[Ned]

MrFun, let's be more explicit, then. Families comprised of one man and one woman who raise children.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It isn't just the ability of the parents to raise children, it's about how children relate to their caregivers and other people like their schoolmates. Even if you could find a homosexual couple more qualified than everyone else in the world to raise children, those adopted children would still have to face schoolmates who are antagonistic because of the identity of the caregivers, and there would still be a disconnect between heterosexual children and homosexual parents just as there would be a disconnect between homosexual children and heterosexual parents. Adoption is about finding the environment most suitable (conducive) for children to fit into... Hell, some on your side of this (Mad Viking, Drogue, Mr Fun) have acknowledged these problems, so why do you call it a strawman?

The disconnect between children and parents happens for a variety of factors, but so far there is no conclusive empiric evidence, or even a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, that the sexual orientation of the parents has any significant effect on the children. Homosexual kids have the burden that their parents might not accept them being homosexual, as they have no idea how their parents will react. Will a heterosexual kid encounter the same problem with openly gay parents? Highly doubtful, since, I wager, most gay parents will either raise their kids with the assumption they are, like 90% of kids, straight, or raise them under no such assumption at all. I don't see why this would adversely effect straight kids, and I think it would be a boon if the kids happen to be gay.

So the strawman is still there, because you're arguing against a negative result of homosexuals raising kids that hasn't been remotely proven to be such a negative. You just think it might be. Now there's a sound basis for an argument...

Ned, dear... as MrFun has kindly pointed out, gay people are part of families, too. While you might want with all your heart to exclude gays from families, we're all part of them, whether as sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, or fathers and mothers.

[Ned]

The problem here is the issue being forced by litigation rather than by vote of the state legislatures. What this will do is force us into an unforntunate constitutional amendent.

[Kuciwalker]

What's wrong with something being forced by litigation, when the electorate is clearly stupid?

[molly bloom]

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 that's an example of one of your more reasonable thoughts then you're in even more serious trouble than I suspected.

Perhaps you could get a helpful friend, parent or student to get you sectioned for your own and society's welfare.

It's not too late for you to rejoin the human race.