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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Regressive as the next Ayatollah? I don't force women to work in the home, or to wear a veil.

Even so, it does not make this statement homophobic. His previous posts on different topics are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Child endangerment? You'd think I tried to link homosexuality with pedophilia! I do no such thing. In fact, my argument is less restrictive than the one in the article, in permitting gay people to adopt.

You must have a condition known as 'cloth eyes' which either prevents you from seeing hat people have put in their posts, or restricts you to seeing what you wish to see.

Quite how a pre-existing prejudice against gay men and lesbians is supposed not to shape or influence an argument in a thread about adoption 'rights' for gay men and lesbians is beyond me- of course it influences someone who has claimed to be neutral, and is in fact nothing of the sort- his claim to 'know' someone who turned gay by being raped is like something out of a bad film from the sixties or the seventies, linking gay sexuality yet again with violence.

And as far as I know, I claimed Park Avenue linked paedophilia/child endangerment with homosexuality, so smooth your aba down, Mullah Kenobi- your martyrdom fetish is getting a drag.

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

First, a thumbs up for mindseye's excellent posts.

A group hug is in order.

Berzerker, when you learn how the real world works, you will discover that no political group or advocacy group are 100% consistent with their principles -- that would mean those people are perfect, and since there is no such thing as perfect people in the real world, liberals should not be tarred and feathered for inconsistency.

Perfection and consistency are not the same, you're now defending against my accusation of hypocrisy by telling me everyone does it. Well, how does that absolve liberals of my charge?

Boris -

The disconnect between children and parents happens for a variety of factors

True, and the goal of adoption should be to find environments with the fewest disconnects, not more only to pretend they don't exist.

but so far there is no conclusive empiric evidence, or even a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, that the sexual orientation of the parents has any significant effect on the children. Homosexual kids have the burden that their parents might not accept them being homosexual, as they have no idea how their parents will react.

How can you argue there is no evidence only to cite evidence yourself? Can the homosexuals here actually claim they felt no anxiety over their parents finding out about their orientation?

Will a heterosexual kid encounter the same problem with openly gay parents? Highly doubtful, since, I wager, most gay parents will either raise their kids with the assumption they are, like 90% of kids, straight, or raise them under no such assumption at all.

Correct (to a degree), I said this in my post. Furthermore, the heterosexual kid will "fit" in better with the community at large. But this same child will still feel a disconnect with his homosexual parents, albeit not as great if the roles are changed. And he will still face more trouble in the larger community.

I think it would be a boon if the kids happen to be gay.

I suspect it would, that's why I've been asking people if they would rather see a homosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple. But I'm not getting an answer... I wonder why... But if you consider that a boon for a homosexual child, why would you consider it a plus or inconsequential for a heterosexual child? You've basicly just made my case for me...

So the strawman is still there, because you're arguing against a negative result of homosexuals raising kids that hasn't been remotely proven to be such a negative. You just think it might be. Now there's a sound basis for an argument...

What was the motive behind "Heather Has Two Mommies" et al? To educate children about homosexual couples so they won't cause emotional/physical harm to the children of these couples? To help children, adopted or not, "come to grips", with being rasied by homosexual couples? Was it a strawman that inspired the authors of these books?

On a sidenote about the power of the homosexual/liberal lobby:

Another thing I wonder about are those life insurance company advertisements where they offer reduced rates for nonsmokers. Here are the facts. According to an article in Social Science & Medicine in 1991 titled, "Life expectancies of cigarette smokers and non-smokers in the United States," the life expectancy difference between never-smokers and current smokers is about seven years at ages 25-29, and three years at age 75 and older. Thus, it makes actuarial sense for life insurance companies to charge smokers higher premiums.

According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.

Here's my question: How come life insurance companies don't advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals? After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn't it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren't.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031231.shtml

[Q Classic]

it's fun to point out that they're only evil activist judges when they decide against your opinion...

[Ramo]

1. There isn't exactly an excess of peoplw who want to be foster parents. Regardless of one's views of whether it's better one grows up in a straight or gay household, it's crazy to say that it's better that a child grows up in an orphanage than in a gay household.
2. Gay people tend to be more sensitive over the force of gender roles in society in general due to their own experiences, thus would likely be better parents than straight people (even if the children aren't gay - as sexism is pervasive in our society), all else being equal. Parent-child bonds aren't formed through common biological attributes and sexual preferences (otherwise boys wouldn't be close to their mothers or girls to their fathers), rather the ability to relate emotionally and intellectually.
3. As for whether societal censure ought to determine who can adopt, should interracial couples be able to adopt? What about non-Christians?

[Berzerker]

Ramo

1) Priorities, pick the best, then the 2nd best, and so on.

2)

Parent-child bonds aren't formed through common biological attributes and sexual preferences (otherwise boys wouldn't be close to their mothers or girls to their fathers), rather the ability to relate emotionally and intellectually.

Homosexual boys and girls might be closer, you know, little Johnny likes dressing up in mommy's dresses. But if that was true, homosexual children should be just fine telling their parents about their orientation.

3) Those too are factors that should be considered.

[Daz]

/rant mode on/

Its funny Americans have their mouth full of how to raise children. Your average kid is already so ****ed up, a few sexually disoriented ones wont make much of a difference anyway.

/rant mode off/

[Berzerker]

Will it make a difference to them?

[Daz]

Dont know. I am not gay, and dont know what it feels like, or what it brings in everyday life. I hope everyone gets to choose for themselves. Sadly, I dont think that growing up with two guys will give you a choice....


This is such a gay-protective environment that I am honestly afraid to start a discussion.

[MrFun]

People used to think that interracial marriages were against societal values.

[Ramo]

1) Priorities, pick the best, then the 2nd best, and so on.

So you oppose this ruling as well?

Homosexual boys and girls might be closer, you know, little Johnny likes dressing up in mommy's dresses.

I'm far, far closer to my mom than my dad, despite being very different from her in terms of biology and sexual preferences. I suspect that in the vast majority of cultures, it's prevalent than one's closer to mothers than fathers (particularly more traditional cultures, but this is still very common in the modernized West).

But if that was true, homosexual children should be just fine telling their parents about their orientation.

Why? I didn't didn't say that all parents are able to emotionally and intellectually relate with their kids, and I certainly didn't say that all straight parents are able to do so. I did say that with the insight of gay people into the nature of sexism through their personal experiences, all else being equal, they may be able to do so better than straight people.

Those too are factors that should be considered.

Why? Giving state sanction to bigotted feelings would only help to perpetuate them.

[The Mad Viking]

Adam Smith:
Your gay friends worry about the kind of gender role they may represent to their children. You present this as a negative. I think it is yet another positive.
I am more worried about the straight parents who never even think about the gender roles, or who don't even know what a gender role is.

Berz:

The heterosexual child probably won't feel the need to go to that extreme, but they will still feel "different" from their homosexual parents.

Well, as a parent of two teenagers, I can say that children feel very different from their heterosexual parents as well!

I suspect it would, that's why I've been asking people if they would rather see a homosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple. But I'm not getting an answer... I wonder why...

Well, that might be because it's a non-sensical question. Children are neither homo- nor hetero-sexual when they are adopted. They are CHILDREN...

Taxes...
Money <> Food
Money, of whatever form, is a SYMBOLIC form of WEALTH which is based on a mutually agreed upon understanding. It cannot exist without being part of a tribe / society / STATE. Cowry shells are only money if you belong to the STATE that recognizes them as such. Belonging to that state grants you RIGHTS within that STATE, and also requires that you fulfil certain OBLIGATIONS. Failure to fulfil the obligations of a state results in the removal of your rights, or your removal from the state. I suspect, deep down, you already understand this, since I don't think you a posting from inside a penal institution.
The right to own property is a state-granted right. For that reason, purchasing real estate for example, is restricted in various ways for non-citizens. Money is created by the state (or tribe, or whatever) for the improved functioning of the state, as a mutual, social endeavor.

Get over it.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Furthermore, Agathon didn't refute my charge, he simply said it wasn't hypocrisy.

When you said "I'm pointing out the hypocrisy..." and "Sure it's hypocrisy" you weren't charging anyone with hypocrisy?

If someone decries discrimination, it's their job to remain consistent.

You still aren’t getting it, are you.

Originally posted by Berzerker

Originally posted by mindseye

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

Sure they are (...)

Never mind.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.

You actually read this statement: "the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals" ... and you believed it? Berzerker, you really need to get out of Kansas more often.

Both of the reports cited were based on the writings of Paul Cameron, who was unceremoniously tossed out of the American Psychological Association twenty years ago for his laughably unscientific research techniques and for deliberately distorting the work of other psychologists. His "research" has been utterly and thoroughly discredited.

To give you an idea of the quality of this fellow's work, he has also claimed his research showed that that 70% of homosexuals eat their partner's excrement, and that the average gay man has 110 sex partners per year. Cameron has publicly called for the castration of gay men, and the tattooing and quarantining of those with AIDS.

In a public address he one time announced that "Right now here in Lincoln, there is a 4-year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body in a restroom with a homosexual act." When police followed up on this claim, he admitted that it wasn't true, but that it "could be".

I suggest you vet your data more carefully before posting rubbish like this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mindseye


Never mind.

I understand where you're coming from, buddy.

[Gibsie]

I have to say I was someone amused to see Berzerker quoting that study... it distinctly reminded me of the time Park Barn (Sorry, Avenue) posted the other study saying most gays eat poo, cos they're sick.