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

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
you're so dirty!

Um, no -- it would not have been a dirty type of comment -- just a troll.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah! I would have come up with the dirty comment

[Nubclear]

Let's get a good troll rolling again....

ih8f@g5

[Berzerker]

Sava -

sounds like a bunch of crap to me...

there are plenty of bad parents who are heterosexual... I don't see how sexual orientation has anything to do with raising a child. In fact, I think gay couples would be more loving and caring parents than a lot of hetero couples. And don't give me this "teasing" BS... kids are going to tease no matter what.

Why add another excuse to be teased? And being teased about your parents isn't as easily brushed aside, it can be as bad as if the child himself was homosexual. It looks like you didn't read my argument well enough, I said couples who are otherwise equally qualified, not that bad heterosexual couples should be considered as qualified as good homosexual couples.

wtf berz, I though you were a libertarian? can't think of a much stronger exercise of government power than preventing someone from raising a child.

You mean raising someone else's child, this is about adoption, not procreation. Who should be in charge of unwanted children until they're adopted is another debate. Right now the state is involved... It would be interesting to see those who decry this Florida law ask that adoption be privatised.

Imran, when I asked if it was better for a homosexual child to be adopted by a homosexual couple, it sounded like you agreed.
I might have to join Sava in the Land of Confusion...

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun got off a funny.

Imran -

How is this different that all white neighborhoods with one black family back a few decades ago? Would you forbid the black family from adopting a while child because of this? Or better yet, what about mixed race parents?

Just because others may be intolerant shouldn't mean we should deprive these people of adoption. If we do that, we let the bigots win (to use a popular cliche).

Forbid? No, but look for more suitable environments? Yes.
Intolerance exists, that has to be considered when it comes to adoption. This is about finding the most suitable homes for already troubled children, not some adoption "rights". If my child was homosexual I'd find a part of the country to live where that poses the least trouble for them, not more trouble.

[Berzerker]

If we do that, we let the bigots win

That would be using unwanted children to achieve social change, true?

[Berzerker]

From Imran:

Heterosexuals being the vast majority of the populace will not as likely be discriminated. Homosexuals probably will, so it would be better for them to have parents who more likely than not will not look down on their sexual preference and can give them advice on how to deal with it. Of course that doesn't mean homosexual kids should never be adopted by heterosexual parents.

So the orientation of the parents does matter when it comes to homosexual children. Aren't you giving in to the bigots?

From Molly:

Why do I keep ignoring your two questions? Well, let’s see- how easy is it to frame two questions so that you can reasonably assume you’ll get the desired response from people, and then be able to go, nyah, nyah told you so!

So race and orientation do matter.

From Mindseye:

While I do see advantages for same-race parents, I don't believe that they are necessarily crucial ones.

Those advantages become more important if the white and black couples are otherwise equally qualified, but thanks for that admission.

I could quote Boris saying essentially the same thing we see from y'all...

Now, if it's better for some children to be adopted based on their shared race or orientation with the couples adopting them, why do you guys insist on claiming it isn't better for heterosexual children? Oh, because any emotional conflict suffered by heterosexual children isn't that bad? So it's good?

[Ramo]

It was a joke, but if children, as you say, generally have a closer affinity to the mother, how does having two fathers help?

I realize it was a joke, but you didn't address what I was saying. As for why having two fathers would help, as I have been saying all along connections between children and parents aren't forged by similiarities in biology. Whether or not the parent is a man or a woman (or gay or straight), in itself, says nothing of this relationship.

Why do you keep talking about parental abilities? I'm talking about how children relate to their parents.

The latter is a function of the former. If one can easily relate to one's parents, one's parents are probably able in that capacity.

And you just ignored my point, if homosexual children suffer emotional stress over being different from their heterosexual parents,

I didn't ignore it. As I've been saying all along, this is a moot point. I haven't suffered any emotional stress over being different from my female mother.

Why? Because adoption is not about someone's alleged right to adopt children, it's about the children. And if it's about the children, then it's about finding the most suitable environments for those children - environments that are most conducive to their needs. You guys seem to think this is about homosexuals and keep ignoring the children.

Because people raised in a place where homosexuality isn't perceived as wrong can create a greater sense of understanding among the kids' friends and help create a youth society where homosexuality isn't stigmatized. It is about the children. Perpetuating stereotypes that child-raising is best done by one man and one woman through the state will mean that people who find themselves gay or bi as adolescents will mean they will be that much more persecuted.

1) Would you rather see a homosexual child adopted by a homosexual couple than by a heterosexual couple?

2) Would you rather see a black child adopted by a black couple than a white couple?

What is the rationale for your answers?

No (if it were actually possible) and no. Biological attributes aren't determinants of parental abilities. If there's any good reason that the specific gay/black parents ought to be more able parents of these children, then it's a different story.

[Ned]

Assume we just left the issue to the family courts to decide. I assume very few kids would be placed with gay couples, if any at all. Would this make out a case for "illegal discrimination?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Molly -

Such a graceful admission of your mistake.

You need to study the uses of irony. Tabloid prose is a fairly accurate assessment of your writing/rhetorical skills as displayed in this thread. You’re not very adept at withering sarcasm, by the way.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Probably, although many pols and voters were homosexual.

Oh, excuse me? Which politicians? Where and when? There I was thinking Harvey Milk was the first gay supervisor in San Francisco. You’re clearly privy to information the world seems to have overlooked.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Thanks for making my point...again... You seem to be acknowledging my point about the power of the homosexual lobby. But you also seem to think that pointing to other lobby's means there is no homosexual lobby now. Otherwise, you could save us all the time and just admit that the homosexual lobby exists and does exert pressure on many state and local jurisdictions. Your above inquiry only served to show that the pols who told the cops to stand and take the abuse were pandering to someone (the homosexual lobby). Gee, that was my point...

Actually I don’t admit the existence of the ‘homosexual lobby’ (is it next to the transvestite dressing room?) I simply admit that politicians readily identify supposed voting blocs in order to court their support. The idea that gay men and lesbians all somehow think and vote alike simply because of their sexuality is frankly as ignorant as some of the other nonsense you’ve posted here. I understand, of course- heterosexuals have ‘politics’- we just have sexuality. Of course, rioting sports fans angry at their team losing are reasonable- gay men and lesbians in an unidentified riot, which seemingly occurred because riots do for no reason in ‘gay lobby’ areas (not in my experience on four continents, but don’t let that spoil your tabloid fantasy) are just plain, well ‘gay’- no sorry, to use your terminology, ‘homosexual’.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I did, from the cop who was hit in the arm by a brick and from the cop who had knowledge of why the cops were told to stand there and take it.

Ah, the ever reliable police informant. Forgive me for not being as gullible as you. I do think if you bring up this ‘riot’ with its lurid details of attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon (by the way, how do you know the assailant was attempting murder? You don’t of course, but don’t let that spoil the tabloid presentation) and the alleged being told to stand there and take it (like ‘real men’, presumably...) by people unknown on the orders of people unknown for this ‘gay’ lobby- I mean, come on, this is so weak. Let me guess, to protect your ‘sources’ you’ll claim tabloid journalist integrity. Tabloid Chinese whispers. You’re dredging a very scummy barrel here.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Could be, it sure doesn't take much to rattle y'all. Sorry, another anti-gay screed.

Your attempts at humour really aren’t up to much, with or without smilies. Get another scriptwriter.

Originally posted by Berzerker
And I didn't even need a smilie to recognise your attempt at humor.

Now there’s the salient difference between us, you see...



[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Oops, back to repeating "jokes", oh darn, the well ran dry.
QUOTE]

Tabloid prose for tabloid newspapers- you’ve definitely a future in scandal rags.


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Not that it matters to you, but I didn't quote a medical expert. I quoted an economist who offered some numbers from an unnamed source. But I did quote a Canadian study that you are avoiding...

[QUOTE]

Unnamed sources, economists, blah, blah blah.... I’m truly impressed by your in depth survey of the gay and lesbian ‘lobby’ and ‘lifestyle’. That’s sarcasm, by the way, because I loved the way you ‘informed’ me about the Castro and ‘the significance of that area’. There’s where you really came on like a little old lady from Pasadena, or as Private Eye might put it, ‘Outraged of Tunbridge Wells.’



[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker
Are you admitting that race and orientation are valid factors when it comes to adoption? Should they be determining factors when the prospective couples are otherwise equally qualified?

[QUOTE]

Er, no, I’m admitting only that if you frame questions in a certain way to get answers to support your point of view, don’t be surprised if some of us choose not to answer.

Is there something wrong with your eyesight, or comprehension of English?


Still don’t know what this ‘side’ is- who is its leader, where are the branches and the headquarters?

Of course its much easier to identify your side- the side that has:

‘a violent or unreasoning adherence to a creed or view’ - one definition of bigotry, that clearly escaped you.
The view that heterosexuals somehow have superior rights or sole rights to parent or foster or adopt because, er, well, children might get picked on if they have two mummies or two daddies, and heterosexuals can reproduce. And there are more heterosexuals than gays and lesbians, oops, sorry, ‘homosexuals’.

Yes, they might get picked on. They might get bullied if they’re Jewish, or Muslim, or Catholic, or a Mormon, or tall, or short, or fat, or ugly, or disabled, or red haired, or left handed, or black, or white, or any number of other socially and culturally specific reasons.

It’s called life- and the best parents help you get through it.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I realize it was a joke, but you didn't address what I was saying.

Molly sort of took offense, not so much by the joke, but it's failure to tickle his funny bone. Mindseye then launched into a massive strawman about racism etc. I did address your response though...

As for why having two fathers would help, as I have been saying all along connections between children and parents aren't forged by similiarities in biology. Whether or not the parent is a man or a woman (or gay or straight), in itself, says nothing of this relationship.

Then homosexual children would have no problem coming out.

The latter is a function of the former. If one can easily relate to one's parents, one's parents are probably able in that capacity.

Often, not always. Even if the parents display no antagonism toward homosexuals, a homosexual child still understands the potential and understands there is a difference between them and their parents.

I didn't ignore it. As I've been saying all along, this is a moot point. I haven't suffered any emotional stress over being different from my female mother.

You're homosexual?

Because people raised in a place where homosexuality isn't perceived as wrong can create a greater sense of understanding among the kids' friends and help create a youth society where homosexuality isn't stigmatized.

Those places are few and far between. And even in places like San Francisco you'll find plenty of people who don't embrace homosexuality.

It is about the children. Perpetuating stereotypes that child-raising is best done by one man and one woman through the state will mean that people who find themselves gay or bi as adolescents will mean they will be that much more persecuted.

And that means you want to use unwanted children to achieve social change, so it isn't about the children. But I never said child raising was best done by a man and woman, it depends on the needs of the child. Also, I wouldn't call that a stereotype, just a recognition that a man and a woman generally provide a better umbrella for the child - a male and female role model. You said yourself many children form an important bond with their mothers, so was that a stereotype?

No (if it were actually possible) and no. Biological attributes aren't determinants of parental abilities. If there's any good reason that the specific gay/black parents ought to be more able parents of these children, then it's a different story.

So all other things being equal, it doesn't matter if a black child is adopted by a white couple instead of a black couple etc? That means you don't think making use of existing and likely bonds between children and couples matters as long as the couple is qualified to raise children. So why did you earlier talk about the special bond many children have with their mothers if such bonds don't matter?

Molly -

You need to study the uses of irony. Tabloid prose is a fairly accurate assessment of your writing/rhetorical skills as displayed in this thread. You’re not very adept at withering sarcasm, by the way.

I understand what it means when a person uses snide remarks when grudgingly acknowledging a mistake. A lack of character...

Oh, excuse me? Which politicians? Where and when? There I was thinking Harvey Milk was the first gay supervisor in San Francisco. You’re clearly privy to information the world seems to have overlooked.

Being the first supervisor doesn't mean he was the first homosexual politician. Back then homosexuals congregated in certain parts of the city and those parts of the city had representation in the city government. It seems you can't make any argument without being an a$$hole. You don't know what you're talking about, you didn't live there, I did.

Actually I don’t admit the existence of the ‘homosexual lobby’ (is it next to the transvestite dressing room?) I simply admit that politicians readily identify supposed voting blocs in order to court their support.

Didn't you just run down a list of other lobbies to explain that a "gay" lobby is not unusual or unjustified? Sheesh! Now there is no gay lobby, but all those other lobbies are just voting blocs? Just go away, you are all over the place.

The idea that gay men and lesbians all somehow think and vote alike simply because of their sexuality is frankly as ignorant as some of the other nonsense you’ve posted here.

Nice strawman, no where did I say all homosexuals think alike. AARP is a senior's lobby, that doesn't mean all seniors think alike.

I understand, of course- heterosexuals have ‘politics’- we just have sexuality. Of course, rioting sports fans angry at their team losing are reasonable- gay men and lesbians in an unidentified riot, which seemingly occurred because riots do for no reason in ‘gay lobby’ areas (not in my experience on four continents, but don’t let that spoil your tabloid fantasy) are just plain, well ‘gay’- no sorry, to use your terminology, ‘homosexual’.

Another strawman, where did I justify rioting by sports fans?

Ah, the ever reliable police informant. Forgive me for not being as gullible as you.

He wasn't a police informant, he was a sargent in the police force and he was an eyewitness to, and victim of what happened. So the a$$hole who can't resist throwing around strawmen is accusing me (or this honorable man) of deceit because you can't deal with my knowledge and your ignorance of what happened.

I do think if you bring up this ‘riot’ with its lurid details of attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon (by the way, how do you know the assailant was attempting murder?

Throwing a brick at someone is attempted murder. The fact they didn't succeed in killing the victim is irrelevant, that's why it's called attempted murder.

You don’t of course, but don’t let that spoil the tabloid presentation) and the alleged being told to stand there and take it (like ‘real men’, presumably...) by people unknown on the orders of people unknown for this ‘gay’ lobby- I mean, come on, this is so weak. Let me guess, to protect your ‘sources’ you’ll claim tabloid journalist integrity. Tabloid Chinese whispers. You’re dredging a very scummy barrel here.

I'm not giving you his name, it's none of your business. Btw, I dredged and found you at the bottom.

Your attempts at humour really aren’t up to much, with or without smilies. Get another scriptwriter.

Now there’s the salient difference between us, you see...

Yes, I understand the purpose of smilies.

Clean up the rest of your post if you want responses.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And telling me you only recall one riot when you just said you didn't even move there until 4 years after the fact doesn't speak well for your knowledge on this matter.

I can't think of any other incident which could qualify as a "homosexual riot" which was violent enough to include brick throwing, and where the police were ordered to stand by. The White Night Riots were the only one I could think of which fits that criteria.

I even checked the official site for the SFPD. In their history section, there was only one other riot mentioned for the 1960s and 70s, and that took place in Hunters Point (a predominantly black neighborhood) over the police shooting of a teenage car theft suspect. The next earliest riot mentioned was in 1945.

Given that none of us knows what "riot" you are talking about, if you expect us to take that as anything but fiction I think you should at least be able to tell us the year, if not the location and cause. If you cannot even do that, I don't think you can complain if anyone "calls BS" on that.

Being the first supervisor doesn't mean he was the first homosexual politician. Back then homosexuals congregated in certain parts of the city and those parts of the city had representation in the city government. It seems you can't make any argument without being an a$$hole. You don't know what you're talking about, you didn't live there, I did.

Well, I lived there, too, for a lot longer than you did, and I also don't know who you are talking about.

In San Francisco, politicians who "represent parts of the city" are called "supervisors". And Harvey Milk was the first gay supervisor. If you say there were earlier gay politicians representing gay parts of the city, can you back that up by naming one? I really did think Milk was the first. I believe most of the rest of the world, "homosexual" and otherwise, shared this apparently mistaken notion.

Please clue us in! Maybe you can name one of these politicians when you identify that mysterious "homosexual riot"?

[mindseye]

dp

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mindseye, I've searched the CDC site for "life expectancy" and got 1451 hits. I typed in "homosexual life expectancy" and variants with the word "gay" and got nothing. Can you offer the link you were looking at?

You typed "g-a-y"? That had to hurt. Don't worry, I promise not to tell your friends at the Traditional Family Values Coalition.

But hey, I'll give you the exact URL when you supply the name of that "homosexual riot" (I want to fill an apparent gap in my knowledge of SF gay history), and the name of one of those gay supervisors who preceeded Milk.


Anwyay, here are some figures from the CDC that are a little more relevant than the ones you provided (which attributed 95% of AIDS cases to gays and bis).

Proportions of AIDS Cases among Adults and Adolescents by Exposure Category and Year of Diagnosis
Trends: 1985 - 2001, United States
US Center for Disease Control

1985 / 2001
65% / 40% - MSM (men who have sex with men)
20% / 26% - injection drug use
3% / 28% - heterosexual contact
9% / 4% - MSM + drug use

From this data you can see that, in the US, heterosexual AIDS cases outnumber gay AIDS cases by a significant margin. Actually, it's even greater than the figures imply because not all "MSM" contact is "homosexual".

While it's true that gays are a much smaller part of the population, and have been hit disproportionately harder, you can see from the trends which way the wind is blowing. If these trends continue, you and Mr. Williams will at some point not need to concern yourselves anymore about "homosexuals" getting that life insurance premuim break. At that point, presumabley the "heterosexual lobby" will have to take over pressuring insurance companies.

Maybe you should email Mr. Williams with this data. While you are at it, you really ought to clue him in about Paul Cameron before Williams makes a fool of himself again by quoting that rubbish in print. Just don’t be too surprised if Williams doesn’t care.

[mindseye]

Berzerker, before I respond to any of your other malarkey, I want you to answer two questions:

(1) All other qualifications (i.e. race, etc.) being equal, which do you think would be better for a child, being raised by a single heterosexual parent, or being raised by a gay couple?

(2) Which do you think would be better for a child, being raised in an institution, or being raised by a gay couple?