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

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Dissident
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.

How so?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I have yet to see any proof offered for this assertion.

It's just something he saw somewhere over the years.

[Guynemer]

As an aside, while reading this thread, I am torn between smashing my fist into the monitor and laughing my damn fool ass off.

Progressive tax code as a civil rights violation... what a riot!

[Ben Kenobi]

My 15 minutes have been cut short by Ben

Point I wanted to make is that just because PA likes an idea, does not make that idea 'homophobic'.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Did you forget my orientation?

Not at all, but any Libertarian with brains would balk at your argument.

Since it has escaped your less than all encompassing attention , we're not here arguing against discrimination. That would be your leftist friends who are decrying discrimination and unequal treatment. You'll have to explain your desire to discriminate to them since they don't like discrimination.

You've missed the point. "To Discriminate" means to pick or sort out. Moral discrimination does so by assigning values. Every moral rule does this, including ones endorsed by Libertarianism. For example, Libertarians think it's OK to discriminate against thieves. There's nothing wrong with this, in their view, because it isn't wrongful discrimination.

You've complained that your enemies are inconsistent because they favour discrimination in one area and not in another. That's idiotic, since they only consider one to be wrongful and the other justified.

Similarly, Libertarians aren't logically inconsistent by saying both that it's wrong to treat anyone's right to life any less than anyone else's and that it's OK to treat criminals differently than the rest of the population.

As Skywalker noted, your argument is a bad one. It has nothing to do with my distaste for Libertarianism or any normative claims at all - this is a strictly logical matter.

These aren't your goods to "distribute".

Only if you believe in Libertarianism, which I don't. So just stating it as though it were fact is begging the question.

And Libertarians do believe in redistribution of goods - from those who have taken them illegally back to the rightful owners. There is a Libertarian rule that states that only property that has been transferred voluntarily is rightfully owned. If the present distribution of property does not satisfy that criterion, then redistribtion is morally required (i.e. we should restore property to its rightful owners).

Yes, libertarians discriminate against thieves. I like discrimination, I do it every day when I buy something.

Now you're getting it.

Wow! Talk about missing the point. I don't want to outlaw discrimination, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who argue that discrimination is wrong when it comes to homosexual couples adopting children while supporting a discriminatory tax code. And for these same people to couch their argument in terms of "civil rights" is even more ridiculous, I now have a civil right to adopt a child but not be treated equally wrt the taxes?

There's no hypocrisy here since there is no necessary incompatibility between thinking that it is wrong to treat people differently in this respect because of their sexual orientation and believing it is right to treat people differently at tax time. They would argue that it is fine to tax the wealthy more than the poor because to tax them the same amount would put an unequal burden onto the poor for whom the sum would be a greater burden due to the principle of diminishing marginal utility.

Taking $10 from anyone is wrong, it's called stealing and making it legal can't change the immorality of the act.

That may be the case. But you are arguing that these people are hypocritical - i.e. being inconsistent with their own beliefs. But they aren't. They are inconsistent with your beliefs, but that doesn't make them hypocrites.

But obviously the people who support this law believe that "diminishing marginal utility" requires that children be adopted by married heterosexuals. Why? For the good of the children, a factor the homosexuals conveniently ignore. Adoption is not about giving homosexuals a child, it's about finding suitable homes for orphans.

Diminishing marginal utility has nothing to do with adoption that I can see.

Diminishing marginal utility states that when holdings increase utility diminishes. For example, if you have only ten dollars, ten dollars is worth a lot more to you than it is to someone with ten million dollars. All other things being equal, taking ten dollars from someone who only has ten negatively impacts that person's welfare much more than taking it from the millionaire, who probably wouldn't even notice the negative impact.

[Agathon]

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.

One could say with more confidence:

All other things being equal placing a child in a wealthier home is better for the child.

Now, gay couples tend to be better off than hetero couples IIRC.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Point I wanted to make is that just because PA likes an idea, does not make that idea 'homophobic'.

Nah. You can gussy up your bigotry in religious drag, just proving you're as regressive as the next Ayatollah, and P.A. can swan about pontificating about 'child welfare concern' but you're just two sides of the same coin.

Frankly the stench of rotting oil of sanctimony from you two is positively nauseating.

I'm aware of your blinkers ben, how they prevent you from seeing logic and reason in other people's posts, but I wasn't aware that they actually prevented you seeing the whole text of my response- as I clearly posted, 'see P.A.'s PREVIOUS posts for racist and homphobic crap' not necessarily this thread- although with the neat attempt to link automatically link homosexuality and child endangerment I suggest we're there again.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sky -

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...

There is no hypocrisy! NO ONE is talking about "discrimination" - that's STUPID. Discrimination is making a choice based on information. They are rather talking about discrimination based on certain factors - such as race, sexual orientation, or level of income. Each is a SEPERATE case.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sky -

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...

There is no hypocrisy! NO ONE is talking about "discrimination" - that's STUPID. Discrimination is making a choice based on information. They are rather talking about discrimination based on certain factors - such as race, sexual orientation, or level of income. Each is a SEPERATE case.

Reserve me a spot at that wall.

[molly bloom]

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. Adoption does not exist to promote someone's "I want to be a parent too" agenda...

Will we have to search other threads for PA's "scaremongering" too?

For the latter part, you won't have far to look- perhaps you'll find your needle in his haystack of stale diatribes against gay men and lesbians.

For the former, this is another of your assertions not notceably backed up with any proof.

What 'other things being equal'? Parenting certainly doesn't seem to be an innate skill, and I'm unaware that simply being a heterosexual couple magically endows people with the ability to look after their children- if it did, then those homes for unwanted children might be remarkably bare or non-existent by now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I'm neutral.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident


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.

Yeah -- we eat babies.

[chequita guevara]

Since most children are molested and abused in hetero homes, it stands to reason that children are safer with gay people.

[MrFun]

Nah -- safety is not better based on a parents' sexual orientations, but of their individual background in terms of criminality, rampant drug/alcohol abuse, and so on.

[Solly]

A guy I knew from school got raped behind a restaurant a few miles away, that turned him gay. So...