Miami Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban

[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

 

[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 ).

 

[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, this, and this, 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.