Miami Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban

[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 Homo 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 FAGS 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. 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. 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.