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

[Ned]

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

You wouldn't question the wisdom of Senator Edwards who said this matter must be left to the states?

But seriously, Justice Harlan, in describing the justification for and the wisdom of "substantive due process" said that the courts must uphold the fundamental values of society when conducting this form of judicial legislation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Homosexual boys and girls might be closer, you know, little Johnny likes dressing up in mommy's dresses.

Uh, what piece of antiquated gender assignment role playing did you pick that 'fact' out of?

So 'butch' gay men must clearly have been closer to their fathers than their mothers, I suppose? And 'femme' lesbians clearly display a closer attachment to their mothers? Really, 'tis laughable.

Time to get out of your Eisenhower era mental straitjacket, dear.

In my infant school (Catholic Church run, not noticeably filled with flagrant screaming queens priests or otherwise) we had a dressing up box which all children used regardless of sex.

Can't ever recall the women's clothing in the box causing an outbreak of either transvestism or homosexuality in junior school or secondary school.

[Agathon]

Join the "Bang head at wall because of Berz" Club here.

We already have three members. Me, SW and ME

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
Join the "Bang head at wall because of Berz" Club here.

We already have three members. Me, SW and ME

Only if there are uniforms and lifestyle options.

I'm still rankling at clearly missing out on the gay thought police outfits, and the gay lifestyle benefits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You ain't the only ones, Aggie.

[Agathon]

+ + =

[Agathon]

I'm inspired!!!

There once was a young man named Berz
Who had a bad case of Weltschmerz
He ranted and raved
So that marriage would be saved
And parenting remain "his and hers"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by mindseye
[q]Originally posted by Berzerker


You actually read this statement: "the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals" ... and you believed it? Berzerker, you really need to get out of Kansas more often.

To give you an idea of the quality of this fellow's work, he has also claimed his research showed that that 70% of homosexuals eat their partner's excrement, and that the average gay man has 110 sex partners per year.

Oh no! I'm already dead and didn't know it!

And before I was able to try those mighty fine sounding recipes- Faeces Tournedos, Excrement Milanese and the Sh!t Souffle.

And have sex with all those men.

Gee, mindseye, you must be having a great time in heavily populated urbanized Shanghai....

Damn.

The more I read, the more I find out there's a whole lot more to this being gay than I ever knew.

Can I claim unused gay lifestyle benefits?

You know like retroactively accessed frequent flamer points?

[Agathon]

I've changed my mind MB. When I found out that 70% of homosexuals ate their partner's excrement, that did it for me.

Ought to be shot, the lot of you (even the non-excrement-eaters)!!!!


Ta for the sig material BTW.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

So you oppose this ruling as well?

Of course, I've said that all along.

I'm far, far closer to my mom than my dad, despite being very different from her in terms of biology and sexual preferences. I suspect that in the vast majority of cultures, it's prevalent than one's closer to mothers than fathers (particularly more traditional cultures, but this is still very common in the modernized West).

It was a joke, but if children, as you say, generally have a closer affinity to the mother, how does having two fathers help?

Why? I didn't didn't say that all parents are able to emotionally and intellectually relate with their kids, and I certainly didn't say that all straight parents are able to do so. I did say that with the insight of gay people into the nature of sexism through their personal experiences, all else being equal, they may be able to do so better than straight people.

Why do you keep talking about parental abilities? I'm talking about how children relate to their parents. And you just ignored my point, if homosexual children suffer emotional stress over being different from their heterosexual parents, then the same will be true for the heterosexual children of homosexual parents, albeit to a lesser degree for reasons already stated.

Why? Giving state sanction to bigotted feelings would only help to perpetuate them.

Why? Because adoption is not about someone's alleged right to adopt children, it's about the children. And if it's about the children, then it's about finding the most suitable environments for those children - environments that are most conducive to their needs. You guys seem to think this is about homosexuals and keep ignoring the children.

Why can't I get you guys to answer my questions? Here are the two most in need of responses:

1) Would you rather see a homosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple than by a heterosexual couple?

2) Would you rather see a black child adopted by a black couple than a white couple?

What is the rationale for your answers?

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Berz:


Well, as a parent of two teenagers, I can say that children feel very different from their heterosexual parents as well!

And homosexual children have even more reason to feel different.

Well, that might be because it's a non-sensical question. Children are neither homo- nor hetero-sexual when they are adopted. They are CHILDREN...

You mean homosexuality isn't determined until puberty? But homosexuals tell us they knew they were "different" earlier than that, some claim homosexuality is determined genetically. And assuming you're right, what happens when those children do acquire their orientation? Given the fact most people are heterosexual, then most children will be heterosexual too. So how does that help your argument?

Taxes...
Money <> Food
Money, of whatever form, is a SYMBOLIC form of WEALTH which is based on a mutually agreed upon understanding. It cannot exist without being part of a tribe / society / STATE.

No, all it requires is 2 people wanting to trade. Both ostensibly seeking what they value more via barter...

Cowry shells are only money if you belong to the STATE that recognizes them as such.

No, cowry shells constitute value only if the people bartering view then as valuable.

Belonging to that state grants you RIGHTS within that STATE, and also requires that you fulfil certain OBLIGATIONS.

Why? When the Nazis slaughtered millions of people, did their victims have "rights"? Why were the Nazis accused of crimes against humanity for the mass murder of Germans? According to your logic, the victims had only those rights granted by the Nazis.

Failure to fulfil the obligations of a state results in the removal of your rights, or your removal from the state.

That avoids reality, you want the state to impose these "obligations" on others. So it isn't the "state", it is you. So, where did you obtain this "right" to forcibly obligate others to serve your needs? Sounds a bit like slavery...

I suspect, deep down, you already understand this, since I don't think you a posting from inside a penal institution.
The right to own property is a state-granted right. For that reason, purchasing real estate for example, is restricted in various ways for non-citizens. Money is created by the state (or tribe, or whatever) for the improved functioning of the state, as a mutual, social endeavor.

Not according to our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These documents argue that our rights are pre-existing, not gifts from the state.

Get over it.

You don't like this law in Florida? Get over it. See what a wonderful rebuttal that was?

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by mindseye
[q] Originally posted by Berzerker
When you said "I'm pointing out the hypocrisy..." and "Sure it's hypocrisy" you weren't charging anyone with hypocrisy?

Where did I say I never accused liberals of hypocrisy?

You still aren’t getting it, are you.

Oh, I got it, liberals only condemn discrimination they don't like. But discrimination they do like? Well, that's justified and everyone else's is unjustified.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon
Join the "Bang head at wall because of Berz" Club here.

We already have three members. Me, SW and ME

And you left me out, because . . . . .?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because you bang.... other things .

[MrFun]

Hey -- how did you figure out I was gay?