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

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

Your friend's father was present at the White Night Riots? If that is what you are referring to, your post is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts. What a surprise.

I don't know the name of the riots, but whichever riot it was, my description only involves what happened to my friend's father and why the police were told to stand their ground and take the abuse of the rioters and not defend themselves.

I can very well understand why you think the context doesn’t matter, it's not very flattering to your friend's father, and pretty much takes the wind out of your cramped, paranoid sails.

Here was the context, homosexuals were angry (doesn't take much if this thread is any indicator ) so they held a riot. During that riot my friend's father was hit in the upper arm by a brick causing massive bleeding. He explained that because of SF politics and the homosexual lobby, the cops were told to stand there and not suppress the rioters.

Allow me to provide a little context for our forum-mates who may not know about one of the darkest episodes in the history of the SF police force, a force at that time notorious for it's "cowboy" antics and violent tactics.

Yeah, it was the cops fault they were ordered to stand there and take the abuse. You don't even know which riot I'm talking about (nor do I wrt a name) but you're going to provide everyone with "context"?

In 1978 Dan White, a conservative San Francisco city councilman, entered the SF City Hall and shot to death Mayor George Moscone and gay city councilman Harvey Milk, who he felt were responsible for frustrating his conservative political ambitions.

I was Moscone's paperboy.

White was a former SF cop, and was openly supported by the SF police force, some of whom even wore t-shirts supporting White while he was in jail awaiting trial.

The DA pathetically bungled the case, and to the utter astonishment of San Franciscans, White was found guilty only of manslaughter, despite the fact that he hard carefully planned his attack, breaking into City Hall through a basement window to avoid metal detectors, packing spare ammo, and carefully re-loading between assassinations. For a double murder, he got off with a hand-slap sentence of less than 8 years (after about four, he was paroled).

It was the twinkies. Isn't that what we've come to expect thanks to liberals and their "it's society's fault" BS?

The police were jubilant. "Danny-boy" beat the rap. Later, after being released from prison, White admitted to the detective who had arrested him that it was, in fact, premeditated murder, and that he had planned to kill two more liberal city officials (one was a woman).

Where do yo get this stuff? Yeah, the cops were elated.

On the day the stunning verdict was announced, the city reacted in a spasm of outrage. A large crowd of gay people spontaneously gathered in the Castro, the center of SF's gay community. They began marching down Market Street, toward downtown and City Hall. As the crowd moved it gathered in size. By the time it reached City Hall, it was no longer a crowd of gays, it was a mob of thousands of citizens.

Sorry, but the riot I'm talking about occured when I was still in high school, 75-77.

This all happened about four years before I moved to SF, so I did not personally witness it, although I met people who were in the Castro when the police attacked.

I was living there at the time of both riots.

Berzerker, I'm really curious how your friend's father knew that a gay man had thrown the brick.

Because this was a gay riot in the Castro district. And I suspect the reason some cops weren't all too happy with Moscone was that he may have been mayor at the time of this riot when the cops were told to stand there and take the abuse.

I assume that this is where your friend's father was struck, as the police certainly were not "standing there" when they attacked the Castro. As for the police "not being allowed to defend themselves" and being asked to "accept wounds", these were organized riot cops in full gear with shields.

Not my friend's father, and he was a seargent at the time and one of the nicest people you'd ever meet. You're obviously confusing the riot over Moscone's death with the one I'm talking about. And telling me you only recall one riot when you just said you didn't even move there until 4 years after the fact doesn't speak well for your knowledge on this matter.

[MrFun]

Berz's book-length posts are boring.

[Berzerker]

Molly -

Sorry must have missed your ‘exhaustive’ definition in the tabloid thickets of your prose.

Such a graceful admission of your mistake.

Imagine, police being told to take abuse- so who told them to take this abuse and why? Could it be politicians perhaps?

Yup, the politicians give the orders.

Heterosexual politicians, courting votes?

Probably, although many pols and voters were homosexual.

You know, like politicians courting votes in Boston by pandering to the Irish community, or in Detroit by pandering to the African American community, or in fact in any number of cities or states where there are assumed to be readily identified voting blocs? Of course, when it’s the infamous gay lobby, then it’s really beyond the pale....

Thanks for making my point...again... You seem to be acknowledging my point about the power of the homosexual lobby. But you also seem to think that pointing to other lobby's means there is no homosexual lobby now. Otherwise, you could save us all the time and just admit that the homosexual lobby exists and does exert pressure on many state and local jurisdictions. Your above inquiry only served to show that the pols who told the cops to stand and take the abuse were pandering to someone (the homosexual lobby). Gee, that was my point...

Gosh, must be to do with all those homosexuals living in San Francisco, then.

Yup.

By the way, I do know where and what the Castro is, thanks. Sometimes news from America reaches even Europe and Australia. Why, I’ve even heard tell of Harvey Milk, and Mayor Moscone! Gosh, they can’t be the riots you’re referring to can they? The ones that occurred when a jury believed some crappy old sob story about eating too many Twinkies, and let off the (heterosexual) murderer of two San Francisco politicians?

Nope.

So, if you have information about the why and wherefore of this ‘homosexual’ riot from your well informed sources I suggest you share it with us.

I did, from the cop who was hit in the arm by a brick and from the cop who had knowledge of why the cops were told to stand there and take it.

Or do we assume that perhaps these people were rioting because Neiman Marcus or Nordstroms declined their charge cards?

Could be, it sure doesn't take much to rattle y'all. Sorry, another anti-gay screed.

I love the way you talk about this- you sound like a cross between an outraged old lady from Pasadena and Elmer Fudd- ‘Hermione, darling, it was an ‘homosexual riot’ – near gave me the vapours!’

And I didn't even need a smilie to recognise your attempt at humor.

As I said- there’s that job vacancy in ‘Weekly World News’, although I’m beginning to think the Murdoch press may be more your line.

Oops, back to repeating "jokes", oh darn, the well ran dry.

Am I a fan of diversions? - well life is short (apparently according to one of your quoted medical experts especially if you’re homosexual) and then you die, so one takes pleasure where one finds it.

Not that it matters to you, but I didn't quote a medical expert. I quoted an economist who offered some numbers from an unnamed source. But I did quote a Canadian study that you are avoiding...

Why do I keep ignoring your two questions? Well, let’s see- how easy is it to frame two questions so that you can reasonably assume you’ll get the desired response from people, and then be able to go, nyah, nyah told you so!

Are you admitting that race and orientation are valid factors when it comes to adoption? Should they be determining factors when the prospective couples are otherwise equally qualified?

Of course, being possessed of free will I can simply say I choose not to answer your questions because I’m unaware of there being any obligation on me to do so.

Sure, but that would appear quite weak in a debate.

As to your self-deceiving notion that somehow they shoot holes in the arguments of ‘my side’- well, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware I had a side- I mean it can’t be the ‘gay lobby’ because Imran and chegitz and Agathon (none of them notably gay) seem to think you’re flying to nowhere too.

Your side - the side that wants homosexuals to have the same standing wrt adoption as heterosexuals regardless of the needs of the children being adopted.

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

Berz's book-length posts are boring.

There's an unbiased source, I'm responding to lengthy posts (inform Mindseye of your boredom too). If you can't handle the reading, don't read.

[Berzerker]

The cops can't win, when they react aggressively to rioters they're condemned. When they're told to stand down like after the Rodney King riots, they're condemned for not being aggressive.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye, I've searched the CDC site for "life expectancy" and got 1451 hits. I typed in "homosexual life expectancy" and variants with the word "gay" and got nothing. Can you offer the link you were looking at?

[Berzerker]

My argument: adoption should focus on the needs of unwanted children, and that means finding environments most conducive to their needs. Most conducive requires maximising known and likely/potential bonds between the children being adopted and the people adopting them. Given comparable qualifications in parenting skills by the prospective couples (even singles if couple aren't available) and other factors like income, race and sexual orientation are not just factors, but determining factors.

Why? Because these are known pre-existing bonds, potential in the case of smaller children with an unknown sexual orientation and in older children (teens) who've yet to make their orientation known. But given the fact most people have a heterosexual orientation, in cases where the orientation of the unwanted children is unknown, heterosexual couples should be given a higher priority.

Who agrees with this? Who disagrees? Why?

[/anti-gay screed]

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree... because when you have a 90% majority of something, and environment most 'conducive to their needs' is any two parent household. It doesn't matter if you are raised by two men or two women, when everyone else in your town is heterosexual, then if you are heterosexual you don't suffer for not having heterosexual parents.

[Sava]

Who agrees with this? Who disagrees? Why?

sounds like a bunch of crap to me...

there are plenty of bad parents who are heterosexual... I don't see how sexual orientation has anything to do with raising a child. In fact, I think gay couples would be more loving and caring parents than a lot of hetero couples. And don't give me this "teasing" BS... kids are going to tease no matter what.

wtf berz, I though you were a libertarian? can't think of a much stronger exercise of government power than preventing someone from raising a child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think he is saying who the adoption agencies should choose if you have a homosexual and heterosexual couple trying to adopt.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think he is saying who the adoption agencies should choose if you have a homosexual and heterosexual couple trying to adopt.

wel l my dumb ass is confused onmce again1`

[Berzerker]

Not every 2 parent household is conducive to the needs of children in need of adoption. I believe it was Ramo (or was it Boris or chegitz) who said many/most children have a closer bond to their mothers, there is no mother with 2 fathers. And 2 mothers, while probably better for a homosexual child, lacks the father figure. Furthermore, there are relatively few communities where you won't find bigotry toward homosexuals within the larger community and even though the child is heterosexual, they will still have to deal with the bigotry targeting their parents and indirectly targeting them for having homosexual parents. For example, upon finding out the child's folks are homosexual, many parents will tell their children to dis-associate with that child. And then there is still the dis-connect a heterosexual child may feel with their homosexual parents. All these problems disappear except for the homosexual child adopted by heterosexuals. But thanks for responding without a pro-gay screed...

Btw, I'm using "bigotry" as used by many homosexuals, not as it is defined in the dictionary:

- a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Some people here qualify as bigots , but not me

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
wel l my dumb ass is confused onmce again1`

Must resist . . . . . . comment.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MrFun


Must resist . . . . . . comment.

you're so dirty!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Furthermore, there are relatively few communities where you won't find bigotry toward homosexuals within the larger community and even though the child is heterosexual, they will still have to deal with the bigotry targeting their parents and indirectly targeting them for having homosexual parents. For example, upon finding out the child's folks are homosexual, many parents will tell their children to dis-associate with that child.

How is this different that all white neighborhoods with one black family back a few decades ago? Would you forbid the black family from adopting a while child because of this? Or better yet, what about mixed race parents?

Just because others may be intolerant shouldn't mean we should deprive these people of adoption. If we do that, we let the bigots win (to use a popular cliche).