Well ,I am not a fan of children ,and I don't plan to adopt. It is not for everyone. But, if there is some poor girl out there that has a baby because it will keep her boyfirend or give her someone to love, and then can't have it, why can't people that want it have it? Me and my partner have breifly talked about adoption, and as I said, it isn't for me. On the other hand, I don't believe that gay people, men or women, should be denied anything.

As quoted above, Straight doesn't mean normal anymore than gay means abnormal. Most of the crap you see on springer and such are straight people. I know, bad example, but you get what I mean.
I beleive that everyone is entitled to the same thing. Gays deserve marriage, children, and all the benefits that heterosexuals do because we are humans too. That is the that. I expect opposition in this, of course, but that is how I feel.

Sandy: I've been acquainted with two couples that have adopted, so i can tell you with pretty much first hand experience that generalizations are the main criteria for eligability. I also have a family member that worked in social services, and it isn't much different there. Whether gays are gay by choice or not is immaterial. As has been said whether someone chooses to be ineligible or is inherently ineligable isn't taken into consideration. The problem, as it is in almost every conversation I have with you and Jesusstayscrunchy and the rest, that you can't tell the difference betweet "Truth" and "Opinion". It is your OPINION that homosexuals are just as able to be good parents as anyone else. The OPINION of Florida lawmakers differs, or at least differed in 1977.

As to the constitution, as I said and you ignored, our perceptions of its meaning changes over time, it is re-interpreted. At one time there was no doubt that slavery was Constitutional. Once we came to the conclusion that "All men are created equal" APPLIED to racial minorities, then we interpreted it to say that slavery was unconstitutional. That's why the primary mechanicanism of change should be the education of the people, so they can make their own decisions.

The Constitution didn't change, our OPINIONS changed, and therefore we interpreted the constitution differently.

Until you guys reject this idea of absolute Truth and accept the fact real change happens when people's minds are changed, you'lll continue to strut around in this self-superior way seeking to impose your idea of the world on everyone else. Don't pretend that you are hiding behind the Constitution, though, or that you are a proponent of Democracy, becaause you seem to have no respect for the idea. To hell with everyone else, your interpretation of the Constitution is Law, regardless of the fact that you are just as fallible and apt to be wrong as anyone else.

"The point is, truth/opinion/bull shit, it doesn't matter. If it is unconstitutional, it frankly doesn't matter what anyones interpretation of who makes a good parent are"

LMAO. "Whut's rite is whut's rite and there ain't no more to say about it..." Nice. Thank GOD this is a Democracy. Some people are incapable of telling the difference between opinion and fact. The Constitution is a 200 year old document. It has to be interpreted, and interpretation is always subjective.

Anyway, Isn't this the exact thing you are after? A high court making a sweeping judgement regardless of the will of the people? Wait, they didn't agree with you, so the ideal system is where the courts always agree with you. Political parties feel that way, too, that's why they do their best to block the approval of anyone that might disagree with them.

"it frankly doesn't matter what anyones interpretation of who makes a good parent are"

Frankly, it does, since the system is set up to decide who will and won't make a good parent. Granted, they didn't ask you about the criterea. Maybe that was an oversight. Do you live in Florida?

"Being gay does not affect your parenting, unless you know of a study that shows this is the case of course. "

Opinion, again. People differ. Change people's minds and this won't be an issue. As long as criterea are used to decide who can adopt, there will always be some sort of descrimination. Whether the descrimination is just or not is for your beloved courts to decide. I guess they have.

The reason we don't live in a true democracy is that sometimes people don't know whats best or beleive something that doesn't coencide with what the founders of this country felt (and it is up to the supreme court to decided this). The supreme court has the the authority to overrule the verdict of the people. Hence the three branches of our representitive government. The judges are chosen by the president we elected. That president can do things the majority doesn't approve of, yet we voted for him so he has the authority. Therefore I tell you once again that majority does not always rule. The majority may feel the president should run for multiple terms, but this is unconstitutional. If congress agrees.. actually if a sweeping 2/3 of the congress agrees with the people, then the congress can overrule the constitution. Like wise, 2/3 of the congress can overrule your choice of president.

You should have no problem with this decision, right? Oh, wait... courts are only right if they concur with YOUR opinions. You needn't talk much about oppression. You seem well acquainted with the concept. If the people disagree with you, then use the courts. If the courts disagree with you, then they are wrong. All hail Emporer Sandy2.

No actually I am saying that the buck stops with the courts. I might disagree with what they say, but I understand they have the authority and respect their decision. This is where you have trouble understanding.

Calling you a religious fantic, by the way, was my mistake. I must have mistaken you for someone else who quite a while back suggested a ludicrous idea that we should have mandated quiet time on sundays for church.

Reply #24 By: sandy2 - 1/12/2005 1:37:47 PM Bakerstreet, you seem to not understand the concept of constitutionality. It doesn't really matter if voters feel I would make an unfit father, because I like you, have the constitutional right to have children. Likewise, that can not be taken away from people by a law passed, but rather by a court who deems ON AN INDIVIDUAL basis if certain people do not make fit parents. Generalizations like "gays would make bad parents" are both unnaceptable and unlawful.

NOT unlawful! "unacceptable", YES! But until the law is chaged it is lawful.

Reply #29 By: sandy2 - 1/12/2005 3:44:32 PM No, as I have tried to point out, the courts have the say on what is constitutional and what is not. At that sugges

That's correct, they do! And as of "right now" the court is saying that barring gays from adopting in FLA *is* constitutional.

It's a shame that kids have to go without homes when there are couples out there willing to provide one. I know that children raised by lesbian parents are just as well adjusted as children raised by a man and a woman and there is proof in this article I wrote not too long ago. Link

To the high court your article means less than nothing. And evidentually they proved the case against homosexuals well enough for them or the law would not have been enacted.

Reply #41 By: LeapingLizard - 1/14/2005 12:03:53 AM A person can have genetic leanings influenced by experience that ultimately lead them to make a decision.

Sorry there is *still* no scientific evidence to back this up.

Reply #41 By: LeapingLizard - 1/14/2005 12:03:53 AM I'm not concerned what my article means to the high courts. The studies are taken from academic journals (listed at the bottom of the journal) and prove that there is no difference in the development of children raised by a heterosexual couple and those raised by a homosexual couple

This may be *proof* to you. But obviously it wasn't much proof for the court now was it.

Leapin,

My official position is that children are best with a mother and father. BUT, there are many children who have neither, and many in the homosexual community are both willing and able to provide these children with a home environment that is far better than their other options, and that the legal process shouldn't stand in the way of these adoptions.

However, my official position doesn't hold water in a court of law.

Gideon

many in the homosexual community are both willing and able to provide these children with a home environment that is far better than their other options, and that the legal process shouldn't stand in the way of these adoptions.

Ok. I'll give ya that. Well, I'll give ya the part that I quoted...

drmiler

I echo those sentiments.

Alright. Good to hear.