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

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am slightly amused.

It is "right" for people to make more money than others under a set of rules put into place by the government, but somehow it is "not right" when the same set of rules stipulate that the same people who make more money need to pay more.

You're also slightly lacking of a fundamental education beyond redgold communist leanings - so enjoy the performance while it's still in town.

[Berzerker]

Sky -

I'm actually with Agathon on this one - "liberals" are claiming that discriminating based on sexual orientation is wrong, not that discrimination is wrong or even that discrimination based on level of income is wrong. They are seperate concepts and thus there is no hypocrisy.

Sure it's hypocrisy, discrimination is okay for me, but not for thee. Furthermore, if liberals want to go down the road of justifiable discrimination to mask the hypocrisy, i.e., we have good reason to discriminate but not you, then you'll have to argue that it is just as good for an orphan to be adopted by homosexuals as it is for married heterosexuals. That dog won't hunt... Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent...

UR -

Only if you can prove that it is moral to own private properties, without any sort of limit or responsibility to the society that allows this to happen.

Two options: "society" steals your property; "society" doesn't steal your property. What, if anything, is "society" entitled to? Taxes for services wanted and rendered, nothing more, nothing less. Once you tax someone just to enrich yourself or your friends and constituents, you've gone beyond moral justification into legalised plunder.

Now, why is private property moral? One need only ask who owns you. If I own you, then you are a slave. If you can leave if you don't like it, well, so can victims of Mafia extortion. Your ability to flee doesn't exonerate me of my crime. You've been given a certain amount of time on this planet by that which is responsible for existence and this time belongs to you. If I can steal your $10, I've taken from you the time you lost obtaining that $10. If no government existed, how would any person feel if someone else came along and stole their home or land? We'd all feel roughly the same, a universal reaction. That is the basis for a moral principle, stealing is wrong because no one wants to be stolen from.

[Berzerker]

UR -

I am slightly amused.

It is "right" for people to make more money than others under a set of rules put into place by the government, but somehow it is "not right" when the same set of rules stipulate that the same people who make more money need to pay more.

But some people would make more than others without the state, so we can have rules that reflect that moral reality or we can have rules that violate it. It is illogical to conclude that stealing from others becomes moral just because some 3rd party - politicians - say so. If the state did not exist and you and your neighbor were making money producing wheat and I walked up and pointed a gun at y'all and announced how it wasn't fair for y'all to keep the fruits of your labor, you sure wouldn't feel my theft was moral and you'd not only be right, but everyone put in your position would feel the same way.

What you're really saying is that the state should punish you for being more productive. Hell, the rest of us should be grateful. You're helping make our lives better...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mindseye
Can married heterosexual couples in Florida legally have sexual intercourse "doggy style"?

Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional -- over a year ago, IIRC.

[Dis]

I'm against gays adopting children. Not because they can't raise them properly. I'm sure they can.

But they are placing kids in harm's way by adopting them.

[Solly]

Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent...

Best quote so far.

The problem I have with this is that the children's interest comes secondary. It is evident that those proposing gay adoption are gay lobbyists, rather than children-welfare lobbyists. Ever wonder why that is...

[Asher]

Are you a child-welfare lobbyist?

[Solly]

I'm neutral.

[Asher]

So why are you in a debate about it?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I'm neutral.

Which accounts for your lack of success with women.

Instead of posting racist and homophobic crap, do something useful, and grow yourself a penis.

[Solly]

"So why are you in a debate about it?"

Neutrality does not preclude one from having a say.

[Berzerker]

Which accounts for your lack of success with women.

Instead of posting racist and homophobic crap, do something useful, and grow yourself a penis.

What exactly was racist or homophobic?

[Dis]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Which accounts for your lack of success with women.

Instead of posting racist and homophobic crap, do something useful, and grow yourself a penis.

is it wrong to care about a child's welfare? I can care less what gays do. But when they endanger or seriously degrade the quality of a child's life, I am concerned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker


What exactly was racist or homophobic?

Previous threads, Berz, baby.

He's a neuter with a past.

[Ben Kenobi]

Instead of posting racist and homophobic crap, do something useful, and grow yourself a penis.

Adoption is, or should be, finding suitable homes for children without families, not soothing some desire to parent.

Thank you for the idea, PA. Well said.