Miami Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban

[BlackTerrel]

This seems to be happening in every state now. The people vote to ban gay marriage or adoption and then a judge overturns it. Why do we even vote? And why are judges so much more pro-gay than the general populace?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoptions


MIAMI – A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."

[nate895]

Of course, this should be up to the individual adoption agency (and the state shouldn't run any agencies). I would advocate against young mothers to send their children to agencies that allowed gay adoption.

[SeanEdwards]

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Boston-based Family Equality Council, said the decision is a "long-overdue recognition of the equal ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to raise happy, healthy families."


This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense. Children deserve both a mother and a father, and two dads or two moms can never be "equal" to the family configuration endorsed by nature.

[Pennsylvania]

I've always felt strange about this issue. I don't care if two men or two women marry, but this brings an additional person into the mix. I can't prove this would have any ill psychological effect on the child, but it just makes me feel bad for the child :(

[nate895]

This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense. Children deserve both a mother and a father, and two dads or two moms can never be "equal" to the family configuration endorsed by nature.

It is what happens when you let the state run your life. It is totally unnatural for the vast majority of the world to work the way it does. The world today rejects common sense because the government has "edumacated" us out of having any.

[JK/SEA]

This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense. Children deserve both a mother and a father, and two dads or two moms can never be "equal" to the family configuration endorsed by nature.

This is bullshit.

I'm not gay, but it seems you do indeed have a line in the sand when it comes to freedom(s).

Another fake Ron Paul supporter(s).

[nate895]

This is bullshit.

I'm not gay, but it seems you do indeed have a line in the sand when it comes to freedom(s).

Another fake Ron Paul supporter(s).

Apparently you don't understand the point of freedom, we let people do whatever they want privately, but we still think it is bullshit if we want to. Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon, and it is even more unnatural to have children raised in an environment to be taught it is natural.

[JK/SEA]

Apparently you don't understand the point of freedom, we let people do whatever they want privately, but we still think it is bullshit if we want to. Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon, and it is even more unnatural to have children raised in an environment to be taught it is natural.

You have just an opinion, which is riddled with homophobia.... The judge ruled with facts, and the Constitution.

Another fake Ron Paul supporter...sad.

[nate895]

You have just an opinion, which is riddled with homophobia.... The judge ruled with facts, and the Constitution.

Another fake Ron Paul supporter...sad.

I have already said it should be up to the adoption agency. More than likely, this judge has ordered that the state adoption agency should allow gay adoption, and for private adoptions to be punished in some way for not allowing it. That is a matter for the legislature, but I'd rather there be no state adoption agency or any punishment for anti-gay adoption agencies.

As for homophobia, in what way is homosexuality a good for society or for children being raised by homosexuals? Children should learn common sense. Being gay has nothing to do with common sense and violates all human instinct.

[Doktor_Jeep]

Wonder if these judges would overturn gun bans?

[The_Orlonater]

Of course, this should be up to the individual adoption agency (and the state shouldn't run any agencies). I would advocate against young mothers to send their children to agencies that allowed gay adoption.

Yeah, those evil gays. :rolleyes:

This is why we "bigots" don't like your grotesque religion or religious lifestyle.

[nate895]

Yeah, those evil gays. :rolleyes:

This is why we "bigots" don't like your grotesque religion or religious lifestyle.

Who said anything about being evil? Homosexuality is unnatural, and definitely not the natural way children should be raised.

[JK/SEA]

I have already said it should be up to the adoption agency. More than likely, this judge has ordered that the state adoption agency should allow gay adoption, and for private adoptions to be punished in some way for not allowing it. That is a matter for the legislature, but I'd rather there be no state adoption agency or any punishment for anti-gay adoption agencies.

As for homophobia, in what way is homosexuality a good for society or for children being raised by homosexuals? Children should learn common sense. Being gay has nothing to do with common sense and violates all human instinct.


OH, i see. So its freedom, freedom, freedom..except for you, you and you, because i said so!..

Can't do it Nate. You're wrong again on this one.

[nate895]

OH, i see. So its freedom, freedom, freedom..except for you, you and you, because i said so!..

Can't do it Nate. You're wrong again on this one.

How isn't it freedom. It is tyrannical for you to force me to think gay marriage is moral, or to support in anyway the adoption of children into gay "families." I should have the right to not support it.

[The_Orlonater]

Who said anything about being evil? Homosexuality is unnatural, and definitely not the natural way children should be raised.

And who the hell are you to judge that? There are plenty of great gay parents. Being gay isn't a choice. Following a contradictory book written 100 years after the so called birth of "christ" is. Lay off the gays, they are not a bunch of feminine acting twits.

[JK/SEA]

Wonder if these judges would overturn gun bans?

one way to find out.

We need a gay person to open carry down a crowded hetero-sexual nude beach....

[The_Orlonater]

How isn't it freedom. It is tyrannical for you to force me to think gay marriage is moral, or to support in anyway the adoption of children into gay "families." I should have the right to not support it.

Tyranical? No one is putting a gun to your head. We're simply inveighing against the drivel you preach. I'm tired of this anti-gay, anti-abortion, and so on movement.

[nate895]

And who the hell are you to judge that? There are plenty of great gay parents. Being gay isn't a choice. Following a contradictory book written 100 years after the so called birth of "christ" is. Lay off the gays, they are not a bunch of feminine acting twits.

I am free to judge whatever way I please. There is a reason why it is only possible for one man and woman to produce a child. That is the natural way of raising children.

As far as gay being a choice, it is an unnatural hormone imbalance or a choice. Either way, it is unnatural.

[dannno]

This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense. Children deserve both a mother and a father, and two dads or two moms can never be "equal" to the family configuration endorsed by nature.

This is collectivist and short-sighted thinking.

First of all, if a straight family wants to adopt there is no shortage of kids who need adopting. You are assuming that gay couples are taking the ability to raise kids from straight couples. Instead, think of adopting couples, gay or straight, like a back-up running team for when the first string gets injured.

Secondly, this is a collectivist statement implying that ALL straight couples are better at raising kids than ALL gay couples. If you let the free market work it out and allow groups to adopt to whoever they want, then they would be able to deny a straight couple who lacks the ability and perhaps the means to raise a child and give them instead to a functional, friendly gay couple. You, on the other hand, want to put them in a position where they can only choose the dysfunctional straight couple.

And no, I don't want to "force" organizations to adopt to gay couples, I just think it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt when there are so many kids in foster homes, which I would argue is much worse than growing up with gay parents in a stable household.

[The_Orlonater]

I am free to judge whatever way I please. There is a reason why it is only possible for one man and woman to produce a child. That is the natural way of raising children.

As far as gay being a choice, it is an unnatural hormone imbalance or a choice. Either way, it is unnatural.

So? Who cares? Even if the so called "unnatural hormone" balance is true(:rolleyes:), it doesn't mean that they aren't hard working, moraled(as in respecting you, your property and so on) people. I bet some of those gay parents can raise a better kid than some of those "natural" parents. Let people choose their sexual lifestyle and whether they can adopt kids.

[dannno]

As far as gay being a choice, it is an unnatural hormone imbalance or a choice. Either way, it is unnatural.

You obviously missed the thread about the lesbian koalas.

[JK/SEA]

Not supporting ..IT..is one thing, but to actively try and LEGISLATE un-constitutional laws to satisfy your homophobia is another matter, and makes true patriots in here working offline for FREEDOM look bad.

You did say you were 16 years old? or am i thinking of someone else?

[tonesforjonesbones]

yep. It is against the laws of nature. just try impregnating a man...lol...2 magnets, like poles repell, and try to join two female ends of a cord..or two male ends...how does that work for ya? This is just more of the marxist agenda to demoralize our country. Now schools are not being allowed to have their traditional Thanksgiving feasts where the kids dress as pilgrims and indians so they can eat together..etc..this country deserves to crash. I'm ready to downsize. Maybe all the marxist cockroaches will scurry away ...tones (I vote against ALL judges on ballots)

[SnappleLlama]

Gay people rule! Just watch ***** Eye for the Straight Guy!

[nate895]

You obviously missed the thread about the lesbian koalas.

Since when does unnatural behavior caused by a hormonal imbalance not happen in other species? Are they immune from genetic or dietary disorders?

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't watch tv...once in a great while i'll catch local news or fox at my parents house. tones

[JK/SEA]

yep. It is against the laws of nature. just try impregnating a man...lol...2 magnets, like poles repell, and try to join two female ends of a cord..or two male ends...how does that work for ya? This is just more of the marxist agenda to demoralize our country. Now schools are not being allowed to have their traditional Thanksgiving feasts where the kids dress as pilgrims and indians so they can eat together..etc..this country deserves to crash. I'm ready to downsize. Maybe all the marxist cockroaches will scurry away ...tones (I vote against ALL judges on ballots)

You are thinking in black and white. Life is complex, wouldn't you agree? and NOTHING is certain, except death and taxes.

I bet you didn't know that there are people out there that really really love each other. One may be a little feminine, and one a little manly. One may be really a man, and one maybe a woman, but you wouldn't really know unless you were their doctor, or parent. Why do you think this is any business of yours if they want to adopt a crack baby, or a retarded baby? or a chinese baby? etc... do you have a drivers license that says GOD where your name should be?

Keep your bullshit homophobic opinion(s) to yourself.

[nate895]

You are thinking in black and white. Life is complex, wouldn't you agree? and NOTHING is certain, except death and taxes.

I bet you didn't know that there are people out there that really really love each other. One may be a little feminine, and one a little manly. One may be really a man, and one maybe a woman, but you wouldn't really know unless you were their doctor, or parent. Why do you think this is any business of yours if they want to adopt a crack baby, or a retarded baby? or a chinese baby? etc... do you have a drivers license that says GOD where your name should be?

Keep your bullshit homophobic opinion(s) to yourself.

Keep your bullshit free speech silencing to yourself. If you want to try to force people to accept gay adoption and gay marriage, it is never going to happen. It is unnatural, and most everyone agrees.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Look...there have always been gay people but i RESENT it being shoved down my throat that I have to accept it as normal mainstream behavior. tones

[JK/SEA]

Keep your bullshit free speech silencing to yourself. If you want to try to force people to accept gay adoption and gay marriage, it is never going to happen. It is unnatural, and most everyone agrees.

free speech silencing?...by me?...lol!

not trying to force anything. just stating facts, and this is a Constitutional issue, of which you can't wrap your brain around. Thats your problem, not mine.

ok, i'll take my gun away from your head now.

[SnappleLlama]

BUNCHIES supports gays!

http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/images/bunchiesrender_07.jpg

[nate895]

free speech silencing?...by me?...lol!

not trying to force anything. just stating facts, and this is a Constitutional issue, of which you can't wrap your brain around. Thats your problem, not mine.

ok, i'll take my gun away from your head now.

I can't imagine anyone framing a Constitution in any state at the time of their adoption who intended for it to be applied to allow gays to adopt.

[dannno]

Since when does unnatural behavior caused by a hormonal imbalance not happen in other species? Are they immune from genetic or dietary disorders?

No, the point of the article was that it was a NATURAL reaction to being held in captivity. The conclusion was that it is not a disorder of the species but of the environment. The gay koalas did not exist in their natural environment. So in a sense you are right, just not the sense you are thinking of.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I am positive that a lot of those kids out there living in childrens homes with no family what so ever would LOVE to have SOMEONE to love them. Gay or straight. A child deserves a family. There are a lot of kids that do not get adopted and they get stuck in the system. Being stuck in the system isn't "normal" either. I couldn't imagine not having a family there for me, much less during the holidays. When you turn 18, guess what - Youre kicked out of the system and sent packing.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well it's a double edged sword for me...I wonder if gay family is better than no family also... tones

[SnappleLlama]

Gay people are just like you or me.

Group hug, now?

[dannno]

I am positive that a lot of those kids out there living in childrens homes with no family what so ever would LOVE to have SOMEONE to love them. Gay or straight. A child deserves a family. There are a lot of kids that do not get adopted and they get stuck in the system. Being stuck in the system isn't "normal" either. I couldn't imagine not having a family there for me, much less during the holidays. When you turn 18, guess what - Youre kicked out of the system and sent packing.

I hope SeanEdwards reads this. He's been making his lame duck argument on here for a while now.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense.

Are you shitting me? WTF? Gay 'marriage' is just code for BEING TAXED since that all a Marriage License is, a tax! Who gives a shit if two gay people, three gay people or 500 gay people all get married? Its none of MINE, YOURS OR THE STATE'S BUSINESS! Gay Marriage has NO BEARING on your marriage, so cut the bullshit about 'strong arming society at large'. There is such a thing as RIGHTS that the majority are not supposed take away. What part of 'Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness' did not compute?

If more people in this country minded their own fucking business we'd be alot better off. Using the government to bludgeon other groups you don't like for no reason other than your religious beliefs shows that YOU are the problem. Furthermore, the State should be totally and completely divested of any power vis-a-vis marriage as its none of the public's business.

[Pennsylvania]

Well it's a double edged sword for me...I wonder if gay family is better than no family also... tones

Same here. I'm still really torn about that.

[Melissa]

I am positive that a lot of those kids out there living in childrens homes with no family what so ever would LOVE to have SOMEONE to love them. Gay or straight. A child deserves a family. There are a lot of kids that do not get adopted and they get stuck in the system. Being stuck in the system isn't "normal" either. I couldn't imagine not having a family there for me, much less during the holidays. When you turn 18, guess what - Youre kicked out of the system and sent packing.

Well I have worked with kids in Foster homes and this is the truth, they don't care if they have a mom or 2 moms or 3 dads, just someone to love them

[zach]

The child needs love, discipline, guidance, and affection in order to grow and have a stable mindset. It doesn't matter if both the parents are male or both are female. Love is love. Not everyone is bound to have a mommy and a daddy, just like not everyone is bound to be attracted towards the opposite sex.

Refusing a child to be in the care of a couple who is willing to care and love the child is probably not thinking in his/her best interests.

That's what I think anyway.

[SeanEdwards]

This is collectivist and short-sighted thinking.

First of all, if a straight family wants to adopt there is no shortage of kids who need adopting. You are assuming that gay couples are taking the ability to raise kids from straight couples. Instead, think of adopting couples, gay or straight, like a back-up running team for when the first string gets injured.



My post was a reaction to the speech of the gay activist who asserted, without any rational basis for doing so, that gay parents were "EQUALLY ABLE" parents as a traditional family. That is pure hogwash, and I don't have to accept bullshit as gospel, no matter how many people call the hogwash truth. It takes a man and woman to make a child, it follows that it should take a man and woman to raise one.

This issue has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with being gay. Or whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It has to do with the reality of how the human species reproduces. The quotation I reacted to was a clear example of the agenda of the gay activists. They are demanding that society abandon it's common sense so as not to offend their delicate self-esteem. These assholes are not going to stop until they have forced the courts to view each and every couple, no matter how perverted and unnatural their behavior is, as equal under the eyes of the law. They're going to keep going until they make it a hate crime to consider the butt-plug flaunting ass-less chaps wearing Folsom street fair celebrant anything less than a perfect parental figure. I don't care if people stick lawn furniture in their ass and parade up and down Folsom street, but don't tell me that that behavior makes somebody equally suitable to raise children as a traditional family.



Secondly, this is a collectivist statement implying that ALL straight couples are better at raising kids than ALL gay couples.


No matter how good or caring the gay parents are, they can never ever provide a child-rearing environment that demonstrates a reproductively viable family environment for the children under their care. That's not collectivism. It's obvious goddamn fact. Every apple falls off its tree. Is gravity collectivist?



If you let the free market work it out and allow groups to adopt to whoever they want, then they would be able to deny a straight couple who lacks the ability and perhaps the means to raise a child and give them instead to a functional, friendly gay couple. You, on the other hand, want to put them in a position where they can only choose the dysfunctional straight couple.


You think the adoption agenices are looking for dysfunctional straight families as adoptive households? You think these organizations are going to place their charges with households full of convicted child rapists, because "well, there was nobody else who wanted the kid"? That's ridiculous.



And no, I don't want to "force" organizations to adopt to gay couples, I just think it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt when there are so many kids in foster homes, which I would argue is much worse than growing up with gay parents in a stable household.

Well you better re-evaluate your position dude. Because it's clear that that is in fact the agenda of the gay activists. They are fighting to remove judgement and replace it with politically correct nonsense. Their stated objective is to force the courts to evaluate all familial relationships as equally suitable for child-rearing. That is immediately going to morph into quota demands for adoptive placement with gay families. How collectivist is that? It won't be about the courts or adoption agencies evaluating individuals as to their fitness to be parents, it will be about the ACLU crying that only 5% of adoptions go to gay families and that there needs to be more "fairness".

[Cowlesy]

I am positive that a lot of those kids out there living in childrens homes with no family what so ever would LOVE to have SOMEONE to love them. Gay or straight. A child deserves a family. There are a lot of kids that do not get adopted and they get stuck in the system. Being stuck in the system isn't "normal" either. I couldn't imagine not having a family there for me, much less during the holidays. When you turn 18, guess what - Youre kicked out of the system and sent packing.

I think you are spot on. I came from a good solid household, and given that upbringing I can't even imagine growing up somewhere where you are not loved.

If a gay couple wants to foster a child and bring them up as physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight, I am all for it. Yes it is unnatural in the normal course of life, but I think the child is infinitely better off in a household with those who care. A child raised by a gay-couple who slams into them they must be gay too is just as bad as a straight couple who slams into their kid some other unnatural/immoral idea, or even worse, who doesn't care about them.

[Andrew-Austin]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/animals-get-fre.html

I think we can all learn from the animal sex museum in New York.



I think you are spot on. I came from a good solid household, and given that upbringing I can't even imagine growing up somewhere where you are not loved.

If a gay couple wants to foster a child and bring them up as physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight, I am all for it. Yes it is unnatural in the normal course of life, but I think the child is infinitely better off in a household with those who care. A child raised by a gay-couple who slams into them they must be gay too is just as bad as a straight couple who slams into their kid some other unnatural/immoral idea, or even worse, who doesn't care about them.

Gasp, I had no idea straight couples could be God awful parents too.

Some people here would probably prefer orphans have no parents at all rather than gay parents.

[GivePeace_A_Chance]

Yes!!!!!11

[BlackTerrel]

You have just an opinion, which is riddled with homophobia.... The judge ruled with facts, and the Constitution.

Another fake Ron Paul supporter...sad.

ONE judge overturned the will of the populace of Florida. How is that right?

[micahnelson]

This right here is why I won't support gay marriage. It's not about civil rights, it's about gay people strong arming society at large into rejecting common sense. Children deserve both a mother and a father, and two dads or two moms can never be "equal" to the family configuration endorsed by nature.

So would you support the relocation of children from single parent homes?

[micahnelson]

Keep your bullshit free speech silencing to yourself. If you want to try to force people to accept gay adoption and gay marriage, it is never going to happen. It is unnatural, and most everyone agrees.

Tyranny of the majority doesn't cut it in a republic. If i have a child and want him to grow up in a home with two dads or two mom's, that is between me and the adoptive parents.

State has no rights to interfere here.

[micahnelson]

I can't imagine anyone framing a Constitution in any state at the time of their adoption who intended for it to be applied to allow gays to adopt.

Many of the states didn't include suffrage for women, civil rights for blacks, etc...

[James Madison]

Most (about 99%) of parents are complete failures in that regard so I don't really understand what the big deal is...its not like heterosexuals have room to talk.

[JK/SEA]

ONE judge overturned the will of the populace of Florida. How is that right?

Ignorance is no excuse. When you're wrong, you're wrong, whether just one person or a million.

This is a civil rights matter.

[Theocrat]

This seems to be happening in every state now. The people vote to ban gay marriage or adoption and then a judge overturns it. Why do we even vote? And why are judges so much more pro-gay than the general populace?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoptions

Is it Constitutional for a judge to overturn gay marriage?

[Mini-Me]

I have no idea why it's so hard to just allow adoption agencies to set their own policies about who may adopt from them, which would allow a mother giving her child up for adoption to decide what kind of family she'd feel most comfortable handing her [ex-]child over to. The state just screws everything up when it gets involved and starts setting one-size-fits-all rules. :(

If I were giving a child up for adoption, I'd personally much rather give it to a stable family with both a mother and a father (for reasons of the child being equally exposed to male and female parental figures), but I'd also rather give it up to a stable gay/lesbian couple than to an entirely single person.

[lodge939]

I'd hate to be that kid on the playground.

[1000-points-of-fright]

If a child needs both male and female parents in order to grow up healthy and well adjusted then single people should not be allowed to adopt and single parents should have their kids taken away after their spouse dies or they get divorced.

Doesn't sound very reasonable, does it? But that's the logical extension of the "children need a mom and dad" argument.

As far as homosexuality being unnatural... BS. If it's a hormone imbalance, it must be naturally occurring. Unless you think 3000 years of homosexuality have been caused by environmental or pharmaceutical toxins? If you believe in God, then it must also be natural because God created everything. If he didn't, then he isn't omnipotent or omniscient and therefore not God. At least not in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense.

You wanna know what's unnatural? Monogamy.

[Fox McCloud]

while, by law I see nothing wrong with it, morally and philosophically, I'd never support it.

that said, I don't like how many judges are arbitrarily quashing the 10th amendment and citizen's rights to vote on certain things in a State.

[Freedom 4 all]

I don't understand anti-gay ideas. I'm not going to judge anyone or accuse bigotry or homophobia. I just am fucking confused and would like to understand. How on earth are gay loving parents in any way inferior to no parents or even hetero parents? Are y'alls even aware that the VAST majority of gay raised kids grow uo straight? What about straight Brian Urlacher who paints his son's toenails and makes him wear pink diapers? Is he more "fit" than gay parents just because he's straight? Remember back when interracial marriage was considered a lethal threat to the "sanctity of marriage?" Please explain how this makes any sense at all?

[SeanEdwards]

So would you support the relocation of children from single parent homes?

No I would not. Nor would I support the relocation of children of gay parents.

What I'm objecting to are the demands of politically correct asshats that each and every family structure imagined by the mind of man be considered 100% equal in all respects.

Even though I don't want to yank the children of single parents out of their homes, I can at the same time acknowledge that the single-parent family organizational structure is inferior to the traditional ideal. Same deal with gay families.

I object to these various proponents of creative family design plans from strongarming the courts into endorsing and supporting their lifestyle choices. Some judge is going to tell me that two gay parents are 100% equal to a traditional family? The fucking judge may as well be trying to tell me that the sky is not blue, it's pink. I understand that the judge may not want to hurt pink's feelings, but this is ridiculous.

[micahnelson]

No I would not. Nor would I support the relocation of children of gay parents.

What I'm objecting to are the demands of politically correct asshats that each and every family structure imagined by the mind of man be considered 100% equal in all respects.

Even though I don't want to yank the children of single parents out of their homes, I can at the same time acknowledge that the single-parent family organizational structure is inferior to the traditional ideal. Same deal with gay families.

I object to these various proponents of creative family design plans from strongarming the courts into endorsing and supporting their lifestyle choices. Some judge is going to tell me that two gay parents are 100% equal to a traditional family? The fucking judge may as well be trying to tell me that the sky is not blue, it's pink. I understand that the judge may not want to hurt pink's feelings, but this is ridiculous.

You're right. The traditional home is the best place for a child, as far as I am concerned.

That said, this should be between biological parents, any agencies that may be involved, and the adoptive parents.

The government should have no involvement in this beyond possible child welfare considerations.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

ONE judge overturned the will of the populace of Florida. How is that right?

Repeat after me: The United States is NOT a Democracy.

It doesn't matter one iota unless there is 100% agreement on an issue. You cannot deny someone else their inalienable rights (and Marriage, last time I checked, is a Right not a Privelege) because you don't agree with it. They are not aggressing against you and are not demanding that your marriage be de-sanctified, which is not the same in reverse. YOU are making unreasonable demands on them based on your religious beliefs. You have Freedom to live as you want. You DO NOT have the right to not be offended by another who is not aggressing against you.

[BlackTerrel]

Repeat after me: The United States is NOT a Democracy.

It doesn't matter one iota unless there is 100% agreement on an issue. You cannot deny someone else their inalienable rights (and Marriage, last time I checked, is a Right not a Privelege) because you don't agree with it.

As opposed to the judge who overturned a vote by the people because he didn't like it. So I can't do it, but the judge can?

This is the 2000 election all over again. Take the power away from the people and to the judges.

BTW no one answered my earlier question. How come judges (in general) are so pro-gay marriage when the majority of the populace is the opposite?


They are not aggressing against you and are not demanding that your marriage be de-sanctified, which is not the same in reverse. YOU are making unreasonable demands on them based on your religious beliefs. You have Freedom to live as you want. You DO NOT have the right to not be offended by another who is not aggressing against you.

So I believe that a normal functioning man is attracted to a woman. A man who is attracted to another man, there's something psychologically wrong with him, he's not functioning normally. And no, I wouldn't want that person to raise a child.

Let me ask you this question - what about a guy who is attracted to sheep? He is a law abiding citizen, harms no one, but he likes to have sex with sheep? Is he normal, should he be allowed to raise a child?

You can say that the two are not the same but I'd disagree. I find the idea of having sex with another male just as disgusting as having sex with a sheep. It's incomprehensible, and even if someone is a nice guy if they enjoy those behaviors there is something wrong with them.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

As opposed to the judge who overturned a vote by the people because he didn't like it. So I can't do it, but the judge can?

You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with the 'will of the majority'...aka a Mobocracy. The judge overturned it because it violates the 14th Amendment among other things.


This is the 2000 election all over again. Take the power away from the people and to the judges.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2000 election. This is about one group of citizens using the government to bludgeon another they don't like.


BTW no one answered my earlier question. How come judges (in general) are so pro-gay marriage when the majority of the populace is the opposite?

Who cares? Its NOT affecting your marriage. It doesn't make one iota of difference if you don't like it. Its called 'Mind your own fucking business'.


So I believe that a normal functioning man is attracted to a woman. A man who is attracted to another man, there's something psychologically wrong with him, he's not functioning normally. And no, I wouldn't want that person to raise a child.

As someone else earlier in this thread wrote, let the adoption agencies deal with it.


Let me ask you this question - what about a guy who is attracted to sheep? He is a law abiding citizen, harms no one, but he likes to have sex with sheep? Is he normal, should he be allowed to raise a child?

Red Herring and beside the point. We're not discussing beastiality. Furthermore we're talking about other members of the species **** Sapiens Sapiens. They ARE human beings after all.


You can say that the two are not the same but I'd disagree. I find the idea of having sex with another male just as disgusting as having sex with a sheep. It's incomprehensible, and even if someone is a nice guy if they enjoy those behaviors there is something wrong with them.

It doesn't fucking matter WHAT YOU BELIEVE! Why is it so goddamn hard the concept of minding your own business. By using government to affect the lives of people who have done nothing to you in the slightest is a form of aggression. Its no different than the douchebags that want to take away my right to own a gun or someone else's right to peacefully assemble, freedom of speech or the right to redress grievances. ITS FUCKING STATISM!

[BlackTerrel]

It doesn't fucking matter WHAT YOU BELIEVE! Why is it so goddamn hard the concept of minding your own business. By using government to affect the lives of people who have done nothing to you in the slightest is a form of aggression. Its no different than the douchebags that want to take away my right to own a gun or someone else's right to peacefully assemble, freedom of speech or the right to redress grievances. ITS FUCKING STATISM!

Someone who likes to have sex with a sheep doesn't effect your life either.

So I've told you my reasoning. I believe men that are attracted to other men are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed to adopt because their mental capacity will negatively affect that child.

So answer my question, it's a yes or no. Is someone who likes to have sex with a sheep mentally stable? Should they be allowed to adopy a child?

[JK/SEA]

Someone who likes to have sex with a sheep doesn't effect your life either.

So I've told you my reasoning. I believe men that are attracted to other men are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed to adopt because their mental capacity will negatively affect that child.

So answer my question, it's a yes or no. Is someone who likes to have sex with a sheep mentally stable? Should they be allowed to adopy a child?

BT..you shouldn't be here. You don't have a grasp on reality, or basic humanity.

I believe your perverted corralation of being gay, and someone who engages in beastiality, is a sign of low brain function. To continue a 'reasonable' intellectual discorse with you is a waste of time. I suggest you log in to the GOD HATES **** web site, and read up on Matthew Shepherd.

I think a ban is in order here moderator. Extreme troll alert.

[RockEnds]

I'd hate to be that kid on the playground.

Yep.

I don't know where anyone gets that any childless couple has a RIGHT to a child. Adoption is socialism. Period. God, the Creator, Nature, the process of evolution, or whatever else it's called already placed that child with parents. Adoption as we know it did not happen before the spread of socialism. Single women kept their children. They may have been wearing scarlet letters, but they faced their responsibility. Society did not reward them for choosing college or partying over their own flesh and blood.

Furthermore, how many of you who think gay adoption is just fine and dandy have to live with the affects of it everyday?? I do. I was adopted by a normal couple. My daughter's father was adopted by a gay man and his wife. They were childless because they did not have sex. They divorced when he was five, and his father got custody. Everyone knew his dad was gay. He grew up fighting--proving his manhood on the playground with his fists. He is filled with resentment over it. Mostly, he hates God and the government because he feels they are most directly responsible for ending up with his dad.

His dad and I were friends. We still are, sort of. He died last year, and his ashes are sitting in my china cabinet waiting for someone to decide what should be done with them. It's a much worse story than I've told, but I'll spare the real ugliness of it.

It's not natural. Not at all.

[1000-points-of-fright]

It's not natural. Not at all.

Neither is the internet, driving, flying, or medicine.

[RockEnds]

Neither is the internet, driving, flying, or medicine.

And no one has forced you to drive, fly, or sit in front of a computer.

[RockEnds]

Honestly, does anyone really believe that providing children to childless couples is a legitimate power of government? Or that a person who has failed to produce offspring for whatever reason has a political RIGHT to a child?

[1000-points-of-fright]

Honestly, does anyone really believe that providing children to childless couples is a legitimate power of government? Or that a person who has failed to produce offspring for whatever reason has a political RIGHT to a child?

Honestly, I'm confused as to where you stand on this issue.

[RockEnds]

Honestly, I'm confused as to where you stand on this issue.

Well, I'm not anti-gay, if that's what you're asking. I met my daughter's father through his father. In fact, I've spent more time living with his father than I have him. When his son and I had trouble, I rented an apartment from his dad. I spent so much time with his dad when I was pregnant that people weren't sure which one them them was responsible. :cool: He was my good friend.

That, however, doesn't change the reality of the situation.

But there is a huge can of worms that is being overlooked here. Adoption is not natural. If two sets of individuals--biological and natural--wish to enter into a private contract recorded by the state, that's thier business, and no one should interfere on behalf of social morality. But what happens when any group is given the 'right' to adopt? This case isn't about the 'best interest of the child' which is the philosophy that originally forced the whole child welfare program upon us. This is about a childless person's right to adopt--to not be discriminated against. He has chosen to pursue a lifestyle, the natural consequence of which is bearing no fruit. Someone has to lose a child before he can exercise his 'right' not to be discriminated against. How many people are ready to volunteer their extra children so that childless couples can exercise their political right to adopt? That's a pretty far out scenario, but it isn't completely implausible over time.

I'm just against the state interfering in the affairs of the family, and adoption is not a right.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Well, I'm not anti-gay, if that's what you're asking. I met my daughter's father through his father. In fact, I've spent more time living with his father than I have him. When his son and I had trouble, I rented an apartment from his dad. I spent so much time with his dad when I was pregnant that people weren't sure which one them them was responsible. :cool: He was my good friend.

That, however, doesn't change the reality of the situation.

But there is a huge can of worms that is being overlooked here. Adoption is not natural. If two sets of individuals--biological and natural--wish to enter into a private contract recorded by the state, that's thier business, and no one should interfere on behalf of social morality. But what happens when any group is given the 'right' to adopt? This case isn't about the 'best interest of the child' which is the philosophy that originally forced the whole child welfare program upon us. This is about a childless person's right to adopt--to not be discriminated against. He has chosen to pursue a lifestyle, the natural consequence of which is bearing no fruit. Someone has to lose a child before he can exercise his 'right' not to be discriminated against. How many people are ready to volunteer their extra children so that childless couples can exercise their political right to adopt? That's a pretty far out scenario, but it isn't completely implausible over time.

I'm just against the state interfering in the affairs of the family, and adoption is not a right.

I don't think "right to adopt" means that childless people will be issued children when they want them. It just means that the government shouldn't be able to pass a law preventing them from adopting a child as long as all parties involved enter into the agreement voluntarily.

[RockEnds]

I don't think "right to adopt" means that childless people will be issued children when they want them. It just means that the government shouldn't be able to pass a law preventing them from adopting a child as long as all parties involved enter into the agreement voluntarily.

All parties rarely involve the natural parents. The parties are usually the a state welfare agency or an adoption agency and the prospective parents. Voluntary infant adoption are becoming rare. Most of these kids are the children of parents who have lost their parental rights involuntarily. I've volunteered for a child advocacy agency. I signed a confidentiality statement preventing me from ever telling anyone about the cases, but if you think that all of these kids were abused and/or neglected, you would be wrong. Some of them were, but many of their parents simply cannot afford a good lawyer. The state PAYS adoptive parents really good money to adopt them. They get a monthly check, and it's nothing to sneeze at.

Adoption is socialism. I can't say it enough times.

[RockEnds]

I don't think "right to adopt" means that childless people will be issued children when they want them. It just means that the government shouldn't be able to pass a law preventing them from adopting a child as long as all parties involved enter into the agreement voluntarily.

And one more point--no one is discriminating against anyone else by refusing them the 'right to adopt'. It is not a right. Keeping one's own offspring is a right. People should have the right to keep their children. They should not, however, have the right to acquire the children of others. We're not talking about buying groceries or real estate. Someone must be deprived their natural, god-given rights to the child before someone else can have the right to acquire that child. Our whole society has a very twisted perception about this. The church is as much to blame as anyone. They promote adoption when they should be promoting taking responsibility for family. I think the church has forgotten their savior was the child of a young, unmarried girl. If Jesus was born today, Christians would counsel Mary to hand him over to an older, more responsible, married godly couple. Oh, the irony.

[zach]

If Jesus was born today, Christians would counsel Mary to hand him over to an older, more responsible, married godly couple.

I had some trouble finding the real argument of this thread, and this summed it up. :)

[RockEnds]

Quote:
If Jesus was born today, Christians would counsel Mary to hand him over to an older, more responsible, married godly couple. I had some trouble finding the real argument of this thread, and this summed it up. :)

Well, in the church's defense, it is slightly better than what the state would do. They would have God imprisoned for pedophilia, Mary in court-ordered counseling to better understand how she'd been victimized by the big G, and Jesus whisked off to foster care and forbidden any contact with either of his parents. :(

[Conservative Christian]

This is bullshit.

I'm not gay, but it seems you do indeed have a line in the sand when it comes to freedom(s).

Another fake Ron Paul supporter(s).

YOU are the fake Ron Paul supporter! Ron Paul clearly disagrees with you on this issue, so stop falsely representing his views!


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage.

Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches."

--Dr. Ron Paul


.

[nickcoons]

Adoption is socialism. I can't say it enough times.

As it is instituted today, that is true.

In a free society, adoption would be nothing more than a couple having custody of a child (most likely biological parents) deciding voluntarily to transfer custody of the child to another set of parents. If an adoption agency were to exist, it would be nothing more than a broker in order to help people who have children and don't want them to people that want children and don't have them. If the state were to be involved at all, it would be at most to enforce whatever contracts these parties mutually agreed to and put into place.

To this extent, the term "right to adopt" would mean that no third party (like the state) could prevent two parties from exchanging custody of a child. It would not mean that anyone who wanted a child would automatically be granted one, because (as you point out) that would mean that someone else would be deprived custody of their child. Any act that infringes on one's rights cannot itself be defined as a right.

[JK/SEA]

YOU are the fake Ron Paul supporter! Ron Paul clearly disagrees with you on this issue, so stop falsely representing his views!




.


And what does this have to do with gays adopting?....read the thread title Einstein.

Its clear to me Ron Paul is in favor of the States to decide on issues like gays adopting, the abortion issue , AND gay marriage. Keep the Federal government out of our personal lives, and that includes you over-bearing self rightous bible thumpers.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Its clear to me Ron Paul is in favor of the States to decide on issues like gays adopting, the abortion issue , AND gay marriage. Keep the Federal government out of our personal lives, and that includes you over-bearing self rightous bible thumpers.

Which then gets in trouble with the 14th Amendment as it precludes the States from denying people their inalienable rights. Marriage is an expression of Freedom of Association in the 1st Amendment which the States cannot willy nilly deny someone. Else there would be no reason to have a Bill of Rights that the States could at-will deny. If so, then you would have no rights period that the States could not simply take away.

I seriously DON'T GET why this is so hard to understand by so many Conservative Christians. By advocating that only certain people have inalienable rights, they are violating their own religious tenets (The Golden Rule)!

[M House]

How about women avoid unwanted pregnancies, just keep their kids, have a family and shut up. I'm in my twenties and had only one significant relationship in college and did not get the girl pregnant. Though that's a bit lonely now it's over WTF is peoples deal with this shit. O yeah somebody wants the child beats me kinda nice somebody wants it unlike the mom who did give it away.

[TrueFreedom]

Apparently you don't understand the point of freedom, we let people do whatever they want privately, but we still think it is bullshit if we want to. Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon, and it is even more unnatural to have children raised in an environment to be taught it is natural.

Who the hell are you to say it's unnatural? I love how everyone spouts off wanting to have freedom and then in the same breath you want to limit the rights of an entire section of people.

[literatim]

I expect Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it.

As for my opinion on adoption. The State is involved and thus I believe that the State should do everything in its power to protect the children that are up for adoption. This includes preventing gays from adopting them.

[TrueFreedom]

I expect Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it.

As for my opinion on adoption. The State is involved and thus I believe that the State should do everything in its power to protect the children that are up for adoption. This includes preventing gays from adopting them.


Yes because we have to prevent them from the big bad gays. Oh yeah, we can't let anyone that might be a little bit different from us adopt kids. Woo hoo for personal liberties and freedom (talk about Orwelian)

[RonPaulMania]

Who the hell are you to say it's unnatural? I love how everyone spouts off wanting to have freedom and then in the same breath you want to limit the rights of an entire section of people.

Who the hell are you to say something which is intrinsically disordered should be allowed publicly? Would you advocate for a math union which teaches 2+2=5 as rights for an entire section of people?

Truth in the public sphere is the only thing with rights. Define a right to me, and how we get our rights. I'd love to hear it. Error in the public sphere has no rights.

[nickcoons]

As for my opinion on adoption. The State is involved and thus I believe that the State should do everything in its power to protect the children that are up for adoption. This includes preventing gays from adopting them.

There are two points here:

First, the state should not be involved, and we all know it. The answer is not to legitimize the state's involvement by giving them more power, but rather to notch away at the power that they do have until there is none left and we can severe their involvement in a matter that should very clearly be private.

Second, I don't know where the idea comes from that a child is better in foster care or in the hands of the state than they are being raised by a gay couple. Call it unnatural if you want (though I disagree), but it's still a preferable environment. Being raised by gay parents doesn't make someone gay anymore than being raised by straight parents makes someone straight (obviously, otherwise there would be no gay people to begin with). It would be a very difficult task to argue that children are better off with the state than they are being adopted by gay couples.

[nickcoons]

Truth in the public sphere is the only thing with rights. Define a right to me, and how we get our rights. I'd love to hear it. Error in the public sphere has no rights.

Man's Rights - by Ayn Rand (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights)

[micahnelson]

The answer is not to legitimize the state's involvement by giving them more power, but rather to notch away at the power that they do have until there is none left and we can severe their involvement in a matter that should very clearly be private.

It would be a very difficult task to argue that children are better off with the state than they are being adopted by gay couples.

you appear to have consistent principled integrity... RPF'rs tend to not go for that.

[nickcoons]

you appear to have consistent principled integrity... RPF'rs tend to not go for that.

I think they go for it far more than the average person does. (Wow, someone said to me what John Stewart said to Ron Paul :D).

[RonPaulMania]

There are two points here:

First, the state should not be involved, and we all know it....

Second, I don't know where the idea comes from that a child is better in foster care or in the hands of the state than they are being raised by a gay couple. Call it unnatural if you want (though I disagree), but it's still a preferable environment. Being raised by gay parents doesn't make someone gay anymore than being raised by straight parents makes someone straight ....

The state should be involved with very little, your Rand article (something I agree with 80%) is correct. Rights, according to Rand and classical ethics, is a moral issue. Rand says:

"“Rights” are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others-the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

Even though the state should be involved with very little, they do have the right and authority to help govern society morally. Theft, murder vs. self-defense, and many other crimes are moral issues and judged by intent.

Being raised by homosexuals and being in that culture DOES raise your risk of becoming mentally unstable by becoming a homosexual.

Homosexuality is unnatural. That's not a debate. If homosexuality was natural they wouldn't need adoption for those body parts which are intrinsically ordered for reproduction. You, as a friendly and respectable debater, should be more inclined to read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle or many different ethicists which are more classical than the brutes today which argue on the level of sophistry.

Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. The intrinsic nature of man or woman produces nothing by acts of same-sex attraction except by pleasure, which is commensurate with chewing on food you enjoy and never swallowing. Both eating and sex produces the survival of the species, one individually, one societal. Any threat to that prolongation is condemnable by every government and should be punishable.

Error has no rights in the public sphere. That is true of libel, errors in education, and especially in public morals.

I want to say that many of you who want to go back to the "founders" country forget homosexuality was banned by every state individually until recently.

[literatim]

There are two points here:

First, the state should not be involved, and we all know it. The answer is not to legitimize the state's involvement by giving them more power, but rather to notch away at the power that they do have until there is none left and we can severe their involvement in a matter that should very clearly be private.

I am not an anarchist, I believe government has its place and one of them is adoption. Children without parents have a lack of sovereign protection that their parents provide them and that a private institution cannot provide them.


Second, I don't know where the idea comes from that a child is better in foster care or in the hands of the state than they are being raised by a gay couple. Call it unnatural if you want (though I disagree), but it's still a preferable environment. Being raised by gay parents doesn't make someone gay anymore than being raised by straight parents makes someone straight (obviously, otherwise there would be no gay people to begin with). It would be a very difficult task to argue that children are better off with the state than they are being adopted by gay couples.

The idea comes from psychological reports stating that a child is best raised in a family with both the mother and father. The interaction the mother and father have with the child provides a healthy environment needed for the child and the various hormones given off by the father and mother effect a child's biological and mental development.

[nickcoons]

Even though the state should be involved with very little, they do have the right and authority to help govern society morally. Theft, murder vs. self-defense, and many other crimes are moral issues and judged by intent.

They are crimes not for arbitrary reasons, but because they infringe on the rights of others. Being homosexual does not infringe on anyone's rights, nor does being a homosexual couple with custody of a child. If no rights have been infringed upon, then no crime has been committed. A right, by definition, cannot imply an obligation on someone else (i.e. you have a right to your life, but I don't have an obligation to sustain your life).


Being raised by homosexuals and being in that culture DOES raise your risk of becoming mentally unstable by becoming a homosexual.

Homosexuality is unnatural. That's not a debate.

It certainly is a debate. I disagree with your presentation of the facts.. is that not the foundation of a debate?

Quite the contrary, homosexuality is very natural, defined by the fact that it exists in nature among non-human animals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals


If homosexuality was natural they wouldn't need adoption for those body parts which are intrinsically ordered for reproduction.

Your statement is far too vague. If homosexuality were a method of reproduction that required artificial assistance, then it could be classified as an unnatural way to reproduce. Artificial insemination is also not a natural method of reproduction; should we ban that? Homosexuality is not a method of reproduction and needs no artificial assistance to occur -- It occurs in nature, and is therefore natural.


Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. The intrinsic nature of man or woman produces nothing by acts of same-sex attraction except by pleasure, which is commensurate with chewing on food you enjoy and never swallowing.

Should we then ban that also? Is the purpose of action defined as "legal" that it must have some productive benefit to society? On the contrary, that's socialism, not freedom. Freedom is me (and everyone else) being able to do whatever we want, regardless of the societal benefits, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others.


Both eating and sex produces the survival of the species, one individually, one societal. Any threat to that prolongation is condemnable by every government and should be punishable.

My wife and I have no intention of having children, but we very much enjoy sex. It seems that we threaten the prolongation of the species and are deserving of punishment. Is that your conclusion as well?


I am not an anarchist, I believe government has its place and one of them is adoption. Children without parents have a lack of sovereign protection that their parents provide them and that a private institution cannot provide them.

I agree that children should have parents. I don't know how you then make the leap to "government should be involved in adoption."


The idea comes from psychological reports stating that a child is best raised in a family with both the mother and father. The interaction the mother and father have with the child provides a healthy environment needed for the child and the various hormones given off by the father and mother effect a child's biological and mental development.

Link please?

My (very quick) research on the topic shows up articles like this (http://www.beachpsych.com/pages/cc121.html), this (http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html), and this (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surrogacyside1xoct30,1,7963634.story?coll=la-headlines-politics), which indicate that there are no known negative effects, or that studies over the past few decades are inconclusive. Any negative effects would be purely speculative.

One of the articles mentioned above says that children raised in homosexual households may be more prone to experiment with homosexual behavior. Unless you're arguing that there's something inherently wrong with being homosexual, this is not a negative.