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

[Solly]

Thanks! I thought it all by myself!

[Berzerker]

My 15 minutes have been cut short by Ben

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




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.

Oh super! The back to the middle ages social sewing circle swells.

Being gay or lesbian does not automatically mean one is a bad parent. Just as being heterosexual does not mean you are fit to parent either.

Gay men and lesbians don't necessarily adopt as some lifestyle choice- perhaps you're confusing us with some Hollywood starlets- Angelina Jolie, Joan Crawford, I couldn't really say.

As for endangering a child's life- it's plain and simple scaremongering bullsh!t on your part P.A. . Yet again conflating paedophiliac tendencies with homosexuality- congratulations for sneaking that in, all that's left is Kenobi's comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and sex addiction and it'll be a prejudiced royal flush.

You two should get married in Vermont.

[Berzerker]

Oh super! The back to the middle ages social sewing circle swells.

Where's my needle and thimble, hun?

Being gay or lesbian does not automatically mean one is a bad parent. Just as being heterosexual does not mean you are fit to parent either.

But all other things being equal, placing a child in a home with a mommy and daddy is better for the child. Adoption does not exist to promote someone's "I want to be a parent too" agenda...

Gay men and lesbians don't necessarily adopt as some lifestyle choice- perhaps you're confusing us with some Hollywood starlets- Angelina Jolie, Joan Crawford, I couldn't really say.

Who cares about their motives? It isn't about them, it's about the child. Sheesh! And liberals calls us libertarians selfish?

As for endangering a child's life- it's plain and simple scaremongering bullsh!t on your part P.A. . Yet again conflating paedophiliac tendencies with homosexuality- congratulations for sneaking that in, all that's left is Kenobi's comparing homosexuality to alcoholism and sex addiction and it'll be a prejudiced royal flush.

Will we have to search other threads for PA's "scaremongering" too? It isn't about pedophilism (hell, they come in all stripes), it's about the child growing up, going to school, and being faced with ridicule if not outright violence from other kids. It's about the child having a connection to his parents and not adding more emotional instability to an already troubled child. How did you homosexuals feel about your parents while growing up? Did you hide your orientation from them? Was there even a slight disconnect given your parents were heterosexual and you weren't? I'd rather see homosexual children adopted by homosexual couples for the same reason heterosexual children should be adopted by heterosexual couples (if sexuality can be determined that early). And I agree with many child welfare people who want black children adopted by black couples as a first resort and not have white couples given the same priority. It's about establishing as many possible connections between the orphan and adults, not "I want a child and I don't care if I'm the most suitable option"...

[Capt Dizle]

I would rather see children adopted by gay couples than be murdered in their mother's womb. Life ain't fair and much of the time all you have to pick from is an odd collection of short sticks.

[Ming]

I would rather see a child adopted by any "loving" person than see them stuck under state care in some institution.
While some foster care situations and state run institutions are ok... the majority are not good enviornments for growing up.

The criteria for adoption should be based on the ability for somebody/couple to care and love for the child... not on their skin color, religion, or sexiual orientation.

[Drogue]

I can see Berz's point. While I think that gay people should be able to do whatever they want, I can't help but think I would rather have been raised by a mum and a dad than by two dads. However, there are many children who need adoption, and I would far rather they were adopted by loving gay parents that kept in the system. So I would support a law saying that gay people should be able to adopt, but personally I would rather see children adopted by a mother and a father than by gay parents. I would like to see what child-welfare workers think on this. Because all I've seen is the gay lobby saying they should be allowed to, and the conservative lobby saying they shouldn't. I don't really care what either of those thinks, when it comes to adoption, it's about what's best for the child. If that's with gay parents, then fine, if that's not, then fine. Has anyone seen a statement by a child-welfare lobby group, or other such affiliate, on whether it's a good idea to allow it or not?

[Solly]

The criteria for adoption should be based on the ability for somebody/couple to care and love for the child...

The problem as most people see it at the moment though, is that this is primarily a gay rights issue, rather than a problem of children's welfare. This ought not be another part of gay political agenda for "equal rights".

Witness the responses in this thread. By opposing gay adoption, being called homophobic is quite telling of where the gays priorities lie: gays becoming parents first, and the children's welfare somewhere down the line. They've given their game away. If they were concerned about the child's welfare first and foremost, the accusation ought to have been that opponents of gay adoption are harming children. They don't claim this, but merely respond to the usual liberal name-calling (homophobia, fascism blah blah).

[Solly]

Family Research Council (FRC) believes it best to move children into permanent homes with married parents. "Children deserve the best possible homes, especially children in the child welfare system who have special emotional and psychological needs."

the promiscuous nature of gay relationships, higher suicide rates among gays and lesbians, and the shorter life expectancies of gay men make "homosexual households an at-risk situation" where children are at "greater risk for emotional, social, and sexual identity problems."

http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm

[Ming]

The gay rights issue is upfront because of peoples/governments responses to gay adoption. I think you are totally incorrect when you state that the rights issue is more important to some than the actual welfare of the children.

Gays don't want to adopt just to prove that they should have equal rights. They want to adopt because they want children... and will provide a loving enviornment for them. The reason why the rights issue seems to be in the lead is because of the response by people to their request... especially people who have no other argument on why they shouldn't besides their bigotry against gays.

[Drogue]

PA: I have to say I think that article goes too far:

the promiscuous nature of gay relationships

Are they any moreso than heterosexual relationships? Comparing a loving, stable, gay relationship to a loving, stable, straight relationship, is there any more promiscuity likely? I doubt it. I do understand the sexual identity problems, if someone is raised by two gay people, they may feel weird when at school and they are assumed to like girls, when they've always seen a gay relationshiop first and foremost. In a heterosexual family, there is a 90% chance that the child will be the same sexual orientation as their parents. 1 in 10 children have to go through the confusion of being a different sexual orientation than the most obvious relationship they see is. However with gay couples adopting, 9 in 10 children will be a different sexual orientation from their parents, the most obvious loving relationship. That could cause confusion in more children.

I think PA overstates that dangers, but I think Ming is wrong that there is "no other argument on why they shouldn't besides their bigotry against gays." There are other arguments, and some child-welfare groups seem to think that it isn't a good thing for the child. The gay rights issue of adoption does matter, but when it comes to any adoption, IMHO, the child's welfare is more important.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drogue
I think PA overstates that dangers, but I think Ming is wrong that there is "no other argument on why they shouldn't besides their bigotry against gays." There are other arguments, and some child-welfare groups seem to think that it isn't a good thing for the child.

You are correct... I was overstating my case. My point was that the issue should revolve around the welfare of the child and not simply a case of bigotry. While I'm sure somebody can come up with NON BIASED research that shows that having a traditional family is better than two same sex parents... I think the same type of non biased study would show that the differences between those two situations would not be all that great, and that either is light years ahead of being under state care.

I want it to come down to looking at the individuals who want to adopt ability to provide a loving enviornment. There are hetrosexual couples who should not be allowed to adopt because they would make terrible parents, just as there are gay couples who fall in the same category. Again, my point was that the decision to allow an adoption should be based on that... and not race, creed, or sexual orientation.

[Drogue]

I agree with that. I think both are far better than state care. However, it can be shown that heterosexual couples make better parents than same sex couples, then that would be an element of judging the suitability of those parents. I think it should be legalised, but I think there should be a slight (only sliht though) bias towards heterosexual couples.

However I think keeping it illegal is just keeping more children in care. Bad for the children, the tax payer, and the couples who wish to adopt

[The Mad Viking]

berz:

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.

Rubbish. "Without the state" there would BE NO MONEY. If you choose to take part in money, you buy into the state system. Money WAS CREATED BY THE STATE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH!

When agriculture was adopted, and surplus food was created, government became necessary to store the surplus, and decide who was freed up from tending the fields to do other work and get to eat anyway. It also came in handy to feed old people who could remember how to deal with catastrophes that occurred before the working populace was born, and to feed sick people who could then survive to contribute once again, rather than starve.

The redistribution of surplus did more benefit to the society as a whole.

It still does.

Grow up. All the benefits you enjoy accrue from this system. It is your duty as a citizen to contribute to it.

It is patently absurd, and childish, to call taxes "stealing". It is also greedy.

My prejudice, as a straight married man with two sons, is that gay parents are more likely to be superior parents than straight parents. I believe they would be better at communicating with their children about prejudice and sexual orientation. I believe that they would be more likely to have to equal, involved interested parents than straight couples. I believe that the children growing up would benefit from the adversity they would face from homophobic children, and become more tolerant and understanding of the differences of others in society. I believe that there are far more straight couples who want to adopt a child due to status and conformity reasons, than gays who want to make a statement about rights (<0). Gays already are non-conforming.

As I said, my prejudice. I would be inclinded to favour prospective gay parents over straight ones.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
But all other things being equal, placing a child in a home with a mommy and daddy is better for the child.

I have yet to see any proof offered for this assertion.