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

[Berzerker]

Sorry, I missed that - you beat me to it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals. You ask for proof of the obvious and throw that bombshell out with no support?

Sometimes I like throwing bombs. It would be interesting to see a report of gay families abusing their children. You rank conservatives would be jumping all over it to show what danger children are in from homosexuals.

Since you don't offer these examples up as evidence, one must conclude that the either so rare they slip under the radar or they don't happen at all. This would lead one to induce that, children are disproportionately more likely to abuse in a mixed-sex home than in a single-sex parent home. It's just "common sense," right?

Originally posted by skywalker
That is OBVIOUSLY, STUPIDLY a fallacy. Most children are also RAISED in hetero homes, and even if you talk about proportions I would seriously doubt that there is a sufficient sample size.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do have to say my opinion of Berz's intellect has fallen somewhat in this thread.

ditto - and my opinion of yours, from your arguments

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
skywalker -

All discrimination is based on specific factors.

There is a COMPLETE, QUALITATIVE difference between "discrimination in general" (that is, making a decision based on information) and "discrimination based on a specific factor" (that is, making a decision based on a specific TYPE of information).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So what? Just because your factors are not shared by everyone else doesn't mean only your discrimination is legitimate. You haven't even tried to show the rationale behind this law is based on invalid factors, so why is it unjustified discrimination (as opposed to your discrimination which I guess is always justified)?

You haven't shown why we should use your concepts of "valid factors" either!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mr Fun -

Thank you, but watch out for Aggie.



Like it or not, many children do treat homsexuals and their children, adopted or not, badly. That has to be considered when it comes to adoption...



"Fault" is one thing, but I suggest a homosexual child growing up with heterosexual parents or a heterosexual child growing up with homosexual parents does feel a disconnect with their caregivers. And regardless of fault, the fact remains children put in that position will have troubles with other children.

Well, since there were so many social problems in schools when desegregation was mandated, I suppose it was wrong to desegregate the schools since those children had to suffer the consequences of enforced civil rights.

[Berzerker]

skywalker -

There is a COMPLETE, QUALITATIVE difference between "discrimination in general" (that is, making a decision based on information) and "discrimination based on a specific factor" (that is, making a decision based on a specific TYPE of information).

Telling me there is a COMPLETE, QUALITATIVE difference between discrimination based on information and discrimination based on specific information is meaningless. No one here has yet explained why the information (specific or not) the lawmakers in Florida had when making their decision is invalid. And I'm not defending their law anyway, I would not support a law that excluded homosexuals from adopting, I support prioritising based on suitability and getting children out of state care. How about single adults? Are they generally suitable to adopt? Perhaps, but they sure aren't preferable to suitable couples. How about 18 or 21 year old single males? Would you guys let anyone adopt without consideration of suitability?

Mr Fun -

Well, since there were so many social problems in schools when desegregation was mandated, I suppose it was wrong to desegregate the schools since those children had to suffer the consequences of enforced civil rights.

Those were high school kids and I believe they volunteered. But they did suffer and I would not have forced them into that situation either (hell, I don't even support state schools). And you're mixing equal treatment of rights with privileges, we don't have a right to adopt and separate but equal was a fiction. Why do y'all care less about the unwanted children than the desire of homosexual couples to adopt? Y'all seem to have no problem putting already troubled children into less than preferable situations and that is just downright strange...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why do y'all care less about the unwanted children than the desire of homosexual couples to adopt? Y'all seem to have no problem putting already troubled children into less than preferable situations and that is just downright strange...

Hey, Mr. Strawman... since there isn't any empirical evidence that homosexual couples are less suitable as parents than heterosexual ones as a group, then this is just one big steaming pile of poo as an argument. The "less preferable" situations notion is precisely what is being debated.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

What part of disproprotionately don't you understand. If (pulling numbers out of my ass) 97% of all families are heterosexual and the 99% of the children who are abused are abused in such families, then children face a greater danger in such families. Now here's the thing. The only instance of gays absing a child I have ever heard of was the two guys who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered a boy. Given the frequency with which conservatives jump all over single instances and try to make generalizations (remember how raising your kids with liberal ideals will make them join the Taleban, because one person did?), if your radio talk show hosts aren't flagellating gay parents with this crap, then I must assume it's because it is disproportionately rare.

AS, not to dismiss your aquaintences concerns, but what are appropriate gender role models supposed to be?It's a valid concern in the context of our heterosexist society, but I don't see why we should have gender roles at all. What should being male or female have to do with your place in society?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Hey, Mr. Strawman... since there isn't any empirical evidence that homosexual couples are less suitable as parents than heterosexual ones as a group, then this is just one big steaming pile of poo as an argument. The "less preferable" situations notion is precisely what is being debated.

in fact, there are more than enough examples of abusive situations that have heterosexual parents...

the fact is, sexual orientation has jack**** to do with a person's ability to raise a child...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Mr Fun -

Those were high school kids and I believe they volunteered. But they did suffer and I would not have forced them into that situation either (hell, I don't even support state schools). And you're mixing equal treatment of rights with privileges, we don't have a right to adopt and separate but equal was a fiction. Why do y'all care less about the unwanted children than the desire of homosexual couples to adopt? Y'all seem to have no problem putting already troubled children into less than preferable situations and that is just downright strange...

Boris beat me to this -- nice strawman, Berzerker.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Originally posted by Agathon

That's not my point, or Skywalkers'. You accused liberals of being inconsistent in their beliefs. They are not inconsistent. They may well be wrong as you say, but that does not mean they are hypocrites or inconsistent.

Can you use the actual quotes?

I think these are the ones:

Originally posted by Berzerker

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.

Originally posted by Berzerker

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, (...) 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

They stuck in my head because I've seen you occasionally use this kind of argument before, i.e. that Party X is a hypocrite/inconsistent/insincere because they simultaneously support/don't support Position Y. Of course, your logic is faulty each time, but at least you are consistent.


The central mistake you've repeatedly made in this thread is to talk about "liberals" being against "discrimination" as if it meant they are against any form of discrimination per se, when in fact the term is usually understood to mean being against some specific form of discrimination made clear by context, e.g. based on race, age, gender, or some other factor considered irrelevant - in this case, sexual orientation.

In a similar way, when people speak of being against "prejudice" it is usually understood from the context that they mean "prejudice based on race", not that they are against any and all preconceived opinions.

Anyway, that's why "liberals" are not, as you claimed, being hypocrites for holding these two positions.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

No one here has yet explained why the information (specific or not) the lawmakers in Florida had when making their decision is invalid.

(...)

You haven't even tried to show the rationale behind this law is based on invalid factors, so why is it unjustified discrimination

Well, in light of the fact that no one has been able offer any good reason why gays would be worse parents than anyone else, the discrimination appears unjustified.

The only reasons I've seen so far are completely unsupported, subjective notions about gender roles and parenting, and dire laments over the possibility of playground taunts. (Did it occur to anyone that the playground taunts will go away when gay parents are no longer stigmatized?)

On the other hand, we have a track record of gays successfully parenting, whose children show no unusual rates of homosexuality or problems relating to their parents' genders. Berzerker, we went over all this before (including quotes from studies) about three years ago, in this very forum.


Good heavens, reading this thread you'd think that gays were in some enormous way different than everyone else. Newsflash: they ain't.

[chequita guevara]

mindseye to the rescue

[Theben]

Ain't isn't a real word.

Due to your sloppy grammar mechanics, I can't believe anything else in your post is worth merit. You lose, I win.

Next.