Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/25/florida.gay.adoption/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/...dex.html</a> One more step forward.
Originally Posted By Mr F HOORAY! One more step toward civil rights and equality FOR ALL. It was STUPID for Florida to ban this in the 1st place. The states argument for this was that "Homosexuals higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable" yet THIS is exactly the reason why children are in foster care in the first place. Lets hope Florida is not STUPID like California and tries to put a proposition on the next ballot to overturn this ruling.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Also, the state's "reasoning" that "Homosexuals higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable" overlooks the fact that those maladies don't tend to affect gays who are out and proud, and/or out and simply accept it as fact; only to those who are gay and ashamed, i.e. internalizing the bigotry thrown at them. Once you ditch that, gay people are no more prone to those things than straight people. As with not allowing gay people in the armed forces, the state is using the bigotry itself (or its effects) as justification for continuing the bigotry.
Originally Posted By Mr F One day, gays will be able to adopt children, get married, AND serve in the military, it just takes one step at a time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <One day, gays will be able to adopt children, get married, AND serve in the military,> Hopefully not in that order.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <One day, gays will be able to adopt children, get married, AND serve in the military,> Hopefully not in that order. >>> Are you against single people adopting?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh No, but I wouldn't prefer it. Children should go heterosexual couples first, homosexual couples next, and singles last. I realize it's not what the poster meant, but the post implied a homosexual couple would adopt, then get married, then go into the military. I'm thinking the reverse order would work better for most people. Just a lame attempt at levity.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Children should go heterosexual couples first, homosexual couples next, and singles last." Hey, Douglas and I agree on something.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<No, but I wouldn't prefer it. Children should go heterosexual couples first, homosexual couples next, and singles last.>>> Why? What makes one couple or even one parent better just because they are a married man and wife? If a couple or a single person have a stable home life and can offer a safe, loving home to a child - it shouldn't matter the make up of the home. I find it crazy that a state or anyone would rather a child be raised in foster care and dumped at 18 than raised as part of a family. Yes I do understand there are good and loving foster families - but really all a child wants is to belong to a family... be it a single parent household or a couple (either homosexual or heterosexual) it shouldn't matter as long as they are a good match - Just because the couple is heterosexual doesn't mean it is the right fit for every child and should get first choice.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think there is something to be said for striving to place kids into a family which represents "normalcy" (and I know I'll probably take heat for using that word), in as much as it is possible. Any orphan has been through enough already. And I know that isn't always possible, but I can sort of appreciate Dougs' "priority list" on this one. Sure, diversity is great, but on the other hand a lot of these kids might have trouble adjusting to ANY new family, never mind one which is quite unusual compared to all the other kids around him/her. One exception I'd make on that priority list though, and I wonder how Doug would feel about it, would be perhaps to place an openly gay kid with a gay couple. To me, that would more properly represent "normalcy" for such a kid. I realize this is a rare case (most kids aren't adopted at such a late stage, right?), but it seems to make sense to me.
Originally Posted By Mr F DouglasDubh: <<Children should go heterosexual couples first>> dshyates: <<Hey, Douglas and I agree on something.>> Who the HELL would agree with this? That is NO different then saying you believe a WHITE couple should get first dibs on adopting a child then a BLACK couple. Are you saying Straights should get first pick, then Gays and should be stuck with the leftovers, who nobody wants, since that's all GAYS would be capable of raising? How dare you say that Gays would be less fitting to raise a child then straights. In my years of working for Disney, I've seen SO MUCH BAD parenting happen from STRAIGHT COUPLES. If anything, Many Straight couples are to blame for teaching their children, hatred, and ignorance. AT least a GAY couple would be more likely to teach their kids tolerance and to respect peoples differences. It may not be 1960 anymore, but ignorance, and stupidity obviously still reign supreme in this idiotic country of ours.
Originally Posted By Mr X You read my post, right Butters? It's not so much an issue of "good" or "bad" as it is striving to place these kids in a situation of most normalcy (again, I'm sure you'll slam me for the word but hopefully you can get what I'm saying here). Would you randomly place a black kid with a white couple and vice versa? If so, why? It stands to reason that a black kid would feel most comfortable in a loving black household, assuming all else is equal (of course, it never is). So, it's not a matter of priority. And yes, other factors MUST be considered. For example, would a good adoption agent place a kid in a dysfunctional unhappy Mom and Dad home rather than in the happy and high functioning gay home next door? No. But, by and large, those issues are somewhat equal (most people looking to adopt are pretty stable and loving, I would assume...strange exceptions of course may apply), and so you have to think about the kid, and how best to serve them. It's one thing to consider everything equally, of course, but what would YOU do Butters when things ARE equal? Place the black kid in a white family "just because"? Flip a coin? Gotta use your head on this stuff sometimes. It's all about what's best for the child, after all. I know people don't want to hear this part, and want to wish a happy, perfect world upon us all, but another consideration (a valid one) is "how well adjusted will this kid be" under the circumstances. Would you assume they would never have to endure any teasing or ridicule for having "two Moms"? Would you shrug your shoulders and say "well, they should just deal with it"? Even if you have an equally qualified heterosexual couple willing to adopt? Would you, Butters?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Gays and should be stuck with the leftovers, who nobody wants, since that's all GAYS would be capable of raising? How dare you say that Gays would be less fitting to raise a child then straights.*** Nobody is saying this, dude. Noone on LP, anyway. Even the most diehard bigots haven't gone this far (except for one, and we should all ignore him).
Originally Posted By Mr X One more point for Butters here. Note that Douglas (a guy I RARELY agree with, but do on this point), indicated that either a straight couple OR a gay couple would be more suitable for a kid than a single person. TWO people. And ideally, it's good for a kid to be raised by a FEMALE and a MALE, so as to learn from both sides of the "human condition" as it were. Given this logic, it even makes sense that a lesbian and a gay man would be preferable to two men or two women, except that leaves out the "loving" part of the equation which is important in a household as well. In any case, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's important to think through this and not be so reactive. Think about the issues YOU might consider if you were an adoption agent and you had choices about where to place the child. There are a million factors to consider, and none have to do with gays being "less capable" or "less worthy" to adopt a child. Just my 2 cents, of course.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Why? What makes one couple or even one parent better just because they are a married man and wife?*** Note he didn't say "married". He just said "couple". And assuming that's what he meant, I agree. Two parents (two GOOD ones, at least) are better than one. More balanced, more "family oriented", etc...and I'm not saying that many single parents don't do a FANTASTIC job, they certainly do in many cases, but it's not ideal and I think even a single parent would say as much in general.
