Judge overturns 31-year old Florida law: "The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption"

[dalegg 143]

Having children? This is not about procreation, but about adoption. The normal life of gay people is just the same as the normal life of any adult. Get a grip.

Restate. Since when is raising children part of the normal life of a gay person? I'm afraid I don't agree with the underlined statement either. I have too many gay friends.

Why shouldn't it be a part of the normal life of a gay person?

I am also curious as to how 'gay adults' are somenow abnormal. Please expand on this statement, as you have all this anecdotal evidence to share.

They typically are not thinking about raising kids. I doubt that even one tenth of gay partners actually want to raise children, and probably less than 1% of them actually do.

Which means that those few that do, must really want to, they aren't becoming parents on some 'whim' (unlike a sadly large % of hetrosexuals). So, while this suggests that wanting to bring up children is not necessarily a part of the 'gay' lifestyle it doesn't suggest there is anything 'abnormal' about the notion. In other words, there is nothing wrong with it and the science backs up this view.

That's true, but it's not the norm.

[Peikko 1,575]

If one based one's morality merely on one's personal experiences, I don't believe one would have a very objective or sound moral code. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are getting at.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

If one based one's morality merely on one's personal experiences, I don't believe one would have a very objective or sound moral code. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are getting at.

in the absence of religion, one can still form a moral code, can they not? or are you really trying to say that anyone who isn't religious has no moral code?

[Peikko 1,575]

Having children? This is not about procreation, but about adoption. The normal life of gay people is just the same as the normal life of any adult. Get a grip.

Restate. Since when is raising children part of the normal life of a gay person? I'm afraid I don't agree with the underlined statement either. I have too many gay friends.

Why shouldn't it be a part of the normal life of a gay person?

I am also curious as to how 'gay adults' are somenow abnormal. Please expand on this statement, as you have all this anecdotal evidence to share.

They typically are not thinking about raising kids. I doubt that even one tenth of gay partners actually want to raise children, and probably less than 1% of them actually do.

Which means that those few that do, must really want to, they aren't becoming parents on some 'whim' (unlike a sadly large % of hetrosexuals). So, while this suggests that wanting to bring up children is not necessarily a part of the 'gay' lifestyle it doesn't suggest there is anything 'abnormal' about the notion. In other words, there is nothing wrong with it and the science backs up this view.

That's true, but it's not the norm.

Ah, the norm or normal - not necessarily the same thing, point taken.

[Peikko 1,575]

If one based one's morality merely on one's personal experiences, I don't believe one would have a very objective or sound moral code. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are getting at.

in the absence of religion, one can still form a moral code, can they not? or are you really trying to say that anyone who isn't religious has no moral code?

Quite the opposite, hence my question.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

If one based one's morality merely on one's personal experiences, I don't believe one would have a very objective or sound moral code. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are getting at.

in the absence of religion, one can still form a moral code, can they not? or are you really trying to say that anyone who isn't religious has no moral code?

Quite the opposite, hence my question.

i'm not seeing a question mark in the previous, just two statements.

[Peikko 1,575]

Charles, for once, could you stick with the main theme instead of grasping at some irrelevant side issue that is completely and utterly meaningless? Probably not, but I can but ask...

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

Charles, for once, could you stick with the main theme instead of grasping at some irrelevant side issue that is completely and utterly meaningless? Probably not, but I can but ask...

i'll give it a try in the future, but now i'm off to bed. you have given me an interesting idea for a poll though.

[IAMX 3,055]

A Florida circuit judge Tuesday struck down a 31-year-old state law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting children.

...

"There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption," Judge Cindy S. Lederman wrote in her 53-page ruling.

"The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

...

She said there is no moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/25/florida.g...tion/index.html

Well, there is a moral reason, it's just from people who like to think their morals are superior to everyone else's. Ruling by arbitrary (likely religious) "morals" has long been something that's been under increased amount of scrutiny and rejection. Other than that, the judge is right on the spot. Children are denied a chance at a healthy permanent family through adoption by also denying the opportunity of homosexuals to adopt children. Given that adoption agencies are picky about even heterosexual couples, I'm sure they'll be making wise decisions about deserving parents. Some of the happiest and smartest people I've met here in the Bay Area were adopted by gay couples. The persecution most of them encountered at some point in their lives I'm also sure opened their eyes to the logic, or lack thereof, of those who wish to impose their moral views of homosexuality against gays, and gays having any of the same rights and opportunities they have. And really these sort of views thankfully are increasingly becoming rejected -- something that undoubtedly will continue to happen across the country.

There's just some people unwilling to join us in the 21st century of society and those people should be trampled over if they want to try and stop progress. Good thing is, less and less people are buying into their views, so I'm sure they'll enjoy being in a strict minority sooner than later.

Edited November 26, 2008 by SRVT

[IAMX 3,055]

What's also funny, from the article, is that those organizations that are actually AROUND and STUDY children behavior, children health, etc., rather than having their lives ruled by beliefs and leaving it at that, all suggest the logic behind gays adopting, and the lack of logic behind barring them from it:

Several organizations -- including the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- have said that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies adoption and foster care, hailed the decision.

"This ban, which was the only one of its kind in the country, has done nothing but undermine the prospects of boys and girls in the foster care system to get permanent, loving homes," said Adam Pertman, the Adoption Institute's executive director, in a written statement.

"So this decision by Judge Lederman is a very important, hopeful ruling for children who need families."

[Sprailenes 47]

I was raised by a gay parent.

Hey guess what! I grew up straight, happy and well balanced. Who woulda thunkit???

[ARodrigues 0]

Its about time..I wrote a paper for a case analysis class on the subject of Florida denying homosexuals the right to adopt late last year.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good. It sounds like the ruling is based on something more tangible than kneejerk ideology.

[DeadPoolX 9]

If Republicans were smart, they'd give homosexuals all the same rights as heterosexuals. They'd gain numerous supporters and the Democrats would have one less weapon to use.

[Peikko 1,575]

If Republicans were smart, they'd give homosexuals all the same rights as heterosexuals. They'd gain numerous supporters and the Democrats would have one less weapon to use.

Talk about turning an argument on its head. The Republican party uses social arguments as 'weapons' - the emotional 'it's not biblical' clap trap, and not all Republicans are like that either, in fact I would say that they are a very vocal minority.