NationStates Jolt Archive

Florida's ban on gays adopting children has been overturned (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/25/florida.gay.adoption/index.html)

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

A Florida court has overturned a state law barring homosexuals from adopting children, ruling that it violated the state constitution. The judge ruled that such a ban violated the children's rights and ran counter to the state's interest in finding stable homes for dependent minors.

Other states, like Arkansas that recently passed a ballot initiative, also ban gay adoption de facto, in that they simultaniously prevent non married people from adopting, and do not permit gay marriage. The combination essentially bars homosexuals from adopting, as they must be married to adopt, and can not get a same sex marriage.

Florida's law, on the other hand, was far more blatant, in that it explicitly, directly barred homosexuals from adopting, regardless of marital status. '

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/25/florida.gay.adoption/index.html)

Rock on! Another step forward!

Two threads on the same topic? :eek2:

That's cool. I've always thought homosexuals made pretty good parents.. Except for one family I knew of where the brother and sister were both pretty fucked up, but I doubt that was entirely the mothers' fault. Anyway, well done to Florida.

Glad to see that, despite the idiocy of election day, perhaps more of the country may be joining New England in their progress towards equality.

Two threads on the same topic? :eek2:

Happens often on important topics like this.

Me = ninja again. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=574196)

Gay parents are Fabulous! :D

Good.


*awaits the bigots on the board to come in howling and saying things that fly in the face of all evidence*

A Florida court has overturned a state law barring homosexuals from adopting children, ruling that it violated the state constitution. The judge ruled that such a ban violated the children's rights and ran counter to the state's interest in finding stable homes for dependent minors.

Other states, like Arkansas that recently passed a ballot initiative, also ban gay adoption de facto, in that they simultaniously prevent non married people from adopting, and do not permit gay marriage. The combination essentially bars homosexuals from adopting, as they must be married to adopt, and can not get a same sex marriage.

Florida's law, on the other hand, was far more blatant, in that it explicitly, directly barred homosexuals from adopting, regardless of marital status. '

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/25/florida.gay.adoption/index.html)

FWIW, here (http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/11/25/12/Redacted_Gill_Final_Judgment_of_Adoption_11.25.08.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf) is a link to the 53-page pdf decision. I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'll provide some highlights when I have.

was a silly law to begin with. now they might be able to get a only married couples can adopt law passed

This is good news indeed.

was a silly law to begin with. now they might be able to get a only married couples can adopt law passed

so they should replace one silly law with an even sillier one?

The following were some of the undisputed facts agreed to by both sides in the case:

Florida’s need for more adoptive parents
33. Florida seeks to find adoptive parents who are able to meet the unique needs of each child who is eligible for adoption and provide a secure and stable permanent family home. Fla. Admin. Code rr. 65C-16.002, 004 and 005; Fla. Stat. Section 409.166(1).

34. Florida has set up several programs to increase the pool of potential adoptive parents. See, e.g., Fla. Stats. §§ 409.166 (subsidies for adopting “special needs” children); 409.167 (statewide adoption exchange);409.1755 (recruitment of adoptive parents for African American children); 409.401 (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children to facilitate interstate adoption).

35. In 2006, there were 3,535 children in State custody and waiting to be adopted (RFP Response 19A) and as of March 20, 2007, 941 children were listed on the Adoption Exchange and had their pictures on the DCF’s recruitment website because more than 90 days had passed since termination of parental rights and no adoptive families were identified. RFP Response 19B; Waters Dep., at 30.

36. At any given point, there are about 900 to 1,000 children in Florida who need adoptive parents to be recruited for them. Waters Dep., at 29-30.

37. 165 children in Florida aged out of the system in 2006 without ever being adopted. RFP Response 19D.

38. The average length of stay for children in foster care in Florida before a finalized adoption was over 30 months (data for fiscal year 2005/2006). RFP Response 19C.

39. DCF agrees that the shortage of adoptive parents is a serious problem. Waters Dep., at 72.

so they should replace one silly law with an even sillier one?

The following were some of the undisputed facts agreed to by both sides in the case:

Florida’s need for more adoptive parents
33. Florida seeks to find adoptive parents who are able to meet the unique needs of each child who is eligible for adoption and provide a secure and stable permanent family home. Fla. Admin. Code rr. 65C-16.002, 004 and 005; Fla. Stat. Section 409.166(1).

34. Florida has set up several programs to increase the pool of potential adoptive parents. See, e.g., Fla. Stats. §§ 409.166 (subsidies for adopting “special needs” children); 409.167 (statewide adoption exchange);409.1755 (recruitment of adoptive parents for African American children); 409.401 (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children to facilitate interstate adoption).

35. In 2006, there were 3,535 children in State custody and waiting to be adopted (RFP Response 19A) and as of March 20, 2007, 941 children were listed on the Adoption Exchange and had their pictures on the DCF’s recruitment website because more than 90 days had passed since termination of parental rights and no adoptive families were identified. RFP Response 19B; Waters Dep., at 30.

36. At any given point, there are about 900 to 1,000 children in Florida who need adoptive parents to be recruited for them. Waters Dep., at 29-30.

37. 165 children in Florida aged out of the system in 2006 without ever being adopted. RFP Response 19D.

38. The average length of stay for children in foster care in Florida before a finalized adoption was over 30 months (data for fiscal year 2005/2006). RFP Response 19C.

39. DCF agrees that the shortage of adoptive parents is a serious problem. Waters Dep., at 72.

I know and I agree. Just the courts will have a harder time striking down a less blatant ban.

Wow... I was halfway through the topic before I realized that it took away a law preventing gays from adopting, and not that a law had just been passed that banned it. Was pretty confused by all of the people saying it was a good thing...

Interestingly, in addition to finding the law against gay adoption violates the Equal Protection rights of both the Petitioner and the Children, the court finds that the ban on gay adoption is a violation of the rights of the children in the case to be adopted by their foster parents:

Here, Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Children’s rights by burdening liberty interests by unduly restraining them in State custody on one hand and simultaneously operating to deny them a permanent adoptive placement that is in their best interests on the other. This Court cannot permit such a double-edged sword to continue to lie dormant in our state law, to the peril of children like John and James, without review. The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect. Both the state and federal governments recognize the critical nature of adoption to the well-being of children who cannot be raised by their biological parents. There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida’s goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to meet their needs. As it relates to the case at bar, John and James were placed into the foster case placement of Petitioner by the State. The record clearly reflects that it is in their best interests to remain in this placement permanently and to be adopted by Petitioner. However, the statutory exclusion deprives John and James the ability to be adopted by their caregivers, to whom they are strongly bonded. Failure of the State to effectuate a permanent placement for John and James with applicants willing and qualified to assume the task creates the risk of severing the Children’s healthy attachments and causing profound long-term negative consequences to their development or relegating them to a childhood and adolescence without a permanent home in foster care.

Thanks for the link Cat.

Wow... I was halfway through the topic before I realized that it took away a law preventing gays from adopting, and not that a law had just been passed that banned it. Was pretty confused by all of the people saying it was a good thing...

Your confusion will fade in time. :)

Good.


*awaits the bigots on the board to come in howling and saying things that fly in the face of all evidence*

So far, it isn't these 'bigots' that have yet displayed a serious case of "intolerance". ;)

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Your confusion will fade in time. :)
It will?! I've been here for four years and I'm STILL confused! :eek2:

I'm glad to hear that this law has been struck down, but I have to wonder just how well it will hold in appeals. This was a good first step, but it ain't over until the Florida Supreme Court sings.

So far, it isn't these 'bigots' that have yet displayed a serious case of "intolerance". ;)




If your hinting that Im intolerant of the intolerant, just come out and say it. In fact, Ill say it for you. I am.


Despite what wingnut Christians like to tell themselves, their is no Constitutional right to discriminate, especially via the law.

If your hinting that Im intolerant of the intolerant, just come out and say it. In fact, Ill say it for you. I am.

Then you have defined yourself as intolerant and discriminating of a worldview and lifestyle!

Sorry...I just feel like nitpicking this afternoon. :)

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

It will?! I've been here for four years and I'm STILL confused! :eek2:

Shh! I'm trying to lull him into a false sense of security. :)

Yay!

So far, it isn't these 'bigots' that have yet displayed a serious case of "intolerance". ;)

Intolerance of intolerance is perfectly acceptable. And there's no need for the quotation marks: They ARE BIGOTS. Period. Bigots. That's what they are. Stupid bigots.

Then you have defined yourself as intolerant and discriminating of a worldview and lifestyle!

Sorry...I just feel like nitpicking this afternoon. :)


I am intolerant and discriminate against bigots who think homosexuals are a lower form of life/second class citizens?


You know, I think I can live with that.

But could you live with contradiction? Circular reasoning?
____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Then you have defined yourself as intolerant and discriminating of a worldview and lifestyle!

Sorry...I just feel like nitpicking this afternoon. :)

So all intolerance is wrong?

I don't see how being intolerant of the intolerant is a particularly bad thing to be.

But could you live with contradiction? Circular reasoning?

I can live with contradiction and circular reasoning as long as I don't have to live with contradiction and circular reasoning. :)

But could you live with contradiction? Circular reasoning?

What contradiction? I believe in legal and social equality. Not letting a group of people treat another like second class citizens because their version of gawd tells them too is not a contradiction at all.

Flawless logic Golfballs! ;)

EDIT: KoL, but naming them "intolerant bigots" is just a very...humorous...way to put it.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Flawless logic Golfballs! ;)

EDIT: KoL, but naming them "intolerant bigots" is just a very...humorous...way to put it.

Edited to remove your sig which, for some reason you won't put in a sig line.
Do you also find it "...humorous..." to name two-wheeled motorized vehicles that have the wheels aligned one in front of the other "motorcycles"?

You call a thing or person by what they are. That's called making sense.

Flawless logic Golfballs! ;)

EDIT: KoL, but naming them "intolerant bigots" is just a very...humorous...way to put it.


Calling a blue footed boobie such might be humorous...but it is also accurate.

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

I am intolerant of intolerance of intolerance!

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.


And failing because thats not whats going on.


I do love this arguement: "What? What the fuck do you mean I cant treat those dirty faggots like second class citizens? Youre so intolerant!"

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.

[EDIT, damn you. (Yeah, for some reason, it really annoys me; I'm not sure why.)]
Uh-huh. Only that's not happening.

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.

except that's not what is going on.

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Nope. Not pot calling kettle.

You can hold all the bigoted view points you want. Not a single person here is going to stop you (they may try to change your views, but we can't and won't force you).

The bigots behind things like prop 8 do force people to follow their biases.

Pot calling kettle black would be us saying "you bigots can no longer get married or have children".

Oh, and fix your sig. Sigs are not copy and pasted into every post. You can access it through your user page.

Pot calling kettle black would be us saying "you bigots can no longer get married or have children".

although after a generation or two the world would be a better place

OK, Narnian Council, I just re-read every post in the thread, and there is not one single negative comment about anti-gay rights people in the entire thing so far. There are only positive comments about the overturning of the rule against letting gays adopt. That's it. Not one word about anti-gay-rights people, negative or otherwise. Zero expression of bigotry against anti-gay-rights people.

Until you showed up with your strawman.

EDIT: Were you afraid a fight wouldn't start, so you decided to try to provoke one?

Pot calling kettle black would be us saying "you bigots can no longer get married or have children".

Though you've shifted to marriage rights now. I was not referring to this - I was making reference to the concept of 'intolerance'...the accusation of which seems to be very carelessly thrown about these days.
____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

So far, it isn't these 'bigots' that have yet displayed a serious case of "intolerance". ;)

Um. The bigots displayed intolerance when they passed Fla. Stat. §63.042(3)(2008), which states, “[n]o person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.”

Though you've shifted to marriage rights now. I was not referring to this - I was making reference to the concept of 'intolerance'...the accusation of which seems to be very carelessly thrown about these days.

maybe because there's a lot of intolerance these days. Really, it's very simple.

If you are against gays adopting, you are intolerant.

If you are against gays marrying, you are intolerant.

If you don't like being called intolerant, stop holding intolerant views.

Though you've shifted to marriage rights now. I was not referring to this - I was making reference to the concept of 'intolerance'...the accusation of which seems to be very carelessly thrown about these days.

[EDIT: How can you possibly be an NS2 Moderator and not know how to use a sig line?]
In this case it would be being thrown about accurately, not carelessly, except that you are the one throwing it around. So I guess that means it's being thrown around falsely.

Though you've shifted to marriage rights now. I was not referring to this - I was making reference to the concept of 'intolerance'...the accusation of which seems to be very carelessly thrown about these days.
____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor


No, actually, it isn't the same still.
There have been no laws enacted to prevent bigots from exercising their rights. There have been laws enacted to prevent their targets from exercising their rights.

I (and really, most in this thread) have never once claimed to accept any bigoted or intolerant viewpoints. In fact, many of us have claimed the exact opposite and fight them actively. And yet, we "tolerate" them. We don't push for legislation to punish these people. We don't kill them or beat them and leave them for dead.

And that is where we differ from them. There is no contradiction. There is no circular logic.

Its not about whether or not anti-gay people are intolerant. Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)
____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Though you've shifted to marriage rights now. I was not referring to this - I was making reference to the concept of 'intolerance'...the accusation of which seems to be very carelessly thrown about these days.


Damn, youre right, silly me. I totally missed the part were it isnt intolerance to write laws that treat some groups like second class citizens for no other reason than God says to.

Its not about whether or not anti-gay people are intolerant. Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Its not about whether or not anti-gay people are intolerant. Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)
____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor
No. It is not hypocritical.

If it were hypocritical, the critics would be claiming that they are 100% tolerant of everybody. Only we're not, are we? You fail again.

Its not about whether or not anti-gay people are intolerant. Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)

Well...um...it's not.

So, now that that's settled, can we move on?

Its not about whether or not anti-gay people are intolerant. Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)

First, edit your sig. Really. It's annoying. Make it an actual sig under the User CP menu.

Second, it isn't hypocritical. "Intolerance" isn't calling someone a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or anything else. Intolerance is passing laws to explicitly ban a certain group of citizens their rights.

It is not intolerant for me to call a gay man "gay". It is intolerant for me to deny him marriage rights because of this.

It is not intolerant for me to call a bigot "bigot". It is intolerant for me to deny him his right to hold this opinion.

No. It is not hypocritical.

If it were hypocritical, the critics would be claiming that they are 100% tolerant of everybody. Only we're not, are we? You fail again.

No - just don't use the accusation of 'intolerance' as if it were some proof that the opposition is in the wrong lol.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

Well...um...it's not.

So, now that that's settled, can we move on?

Lets. I hate this "Youre intolerant because you wont let me be a hateful bigot!" arguement the anti-equal rights side pulls.

No - just don't use the accusation of 'intolerance' as if it were some proof that the opposition is in the wrong lol.

So...your point is that "intolerant" shouldn't be used as a criticism? Huh?

So...your point is that "intolerant" shouldn't be used as a criticism? Huh?

It would make his positions much harder to attack if "intolerance" was not considered something negative.

Its about whether or not it is hypocritical to intolerantly call this worldview intolerant. ;)

and the answer is no, it is not. If you think it is, you need to know what the word means

No - just don't use the accusation of 'intolerance' as if it were some proof that the opposition is in the wrong lol.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor
HAHAHA! Hilarious. Don't call people out on what they are doing as if it were wrong or anything, even though it's totally wrong.

Sorry, pal. If people don't like being described as intolerant, then let them stop acting in an intolerant manner. Otherwise, intolerance gets called intolerance.

And fix your sig.

No - just don't use the accusation of 'intolerance' as if it were some proof that the opposition is in the wrong lol.


Even if you were right in this (which you aren't), your point would be so niggling and pendantic as to be unworthy of the posts you have devoted to it.

regardless, fix your fucking sig.

Even if you were right in this (which you aren't), your point would be so niggling and pendantic as to be unworthy of the posts you have devoted to it.




Exactly. I personally am upset I fed him for so long. He isnt even a fun troll.


Anyway, does anyone know if some idiotic Prop 8 esc thing can be passed in Florida? Id rather not get really happy and then get...owned.

I am going to repeat something I posted here a few times:

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. In a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that another does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak his hate, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I recognize you hold is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that I tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

No - just don't use the accusation of 'intolerance' as if it were some proof that the opposition is in the wrong lol.

No, it's used when the opposition is wrong.

YAY! there are no real haters so we pro-gay people only have ourselves to argue amongst!

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

Again, just DON'T use the accusation of "intolerance" as if it were proof that the opposition is in the wrong. Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).

Btw, please put up with the sig.

_______________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

It will?! I've been here for four years and I'm STILL confused! :eek2:

I'm glad to hear that this law has been struck down, but I have to wonder just how well it will hold in appeals. This was a good first step, but it ain't over until the Florida Supreme Court sings.

Exactly. I personally am upset I fed him for so long. He isnt even a fun troll.

Anyway, does anyone know if some idiotic Prop 8 esc thing can be passed in Florida? Id rather not get really happy and then get...owned.

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but this is just a trial court opinion from the juvenile court of Florida's 11th Circuit. (More info (http://www.jud11.flcourts.org/about_the_court/judicial_circuit_overview.htm) on the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida.)

This decision will undoubtedly undergo many reviews by other courts and may not be upheld. Also, the equivalent of Prop. 8 could theoretically be carried out (although I have little knowledge of how constitutional amendments work in Florida).

Nonetheless, the opinion is very well-written, very thorough in its accumulation of relevant evidence, and very fucking persuasive. It also comes from a highly respected and credentialed judge. It may well hold up.

Is it really the interests of children that are not preserved by prohibiting it, or the interests and sensibilities of adults with certain ideologies?

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

Again, just DON'T use the accusation of "intolerance" as if it were proof that the opposition is in the wrong. Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).

Btw, please put up with the sig.

_______________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor
Then you don't agree with Neo. At all. We all tolerate their bigoted view points by not making them illegal.

as for your sig, no. It is copy and paste spam, technically. Make it an actual sig (something that will take less than a minute), or have a mod do it for you when it gets reported.

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

Again, just DON'T use the accusation of "intolerance" as if it were proof that the opposition is in the wrong. Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).

Wait...so you agree with Neo Art's statement that what you're describing has nothing to do with intolerance, but it's still intolerance? Did you, um, read his post?


Btw, please put up with the sig.

Seriously, it's a pain in the butt to keep having to remove it in quotes. Why not fix it?

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

Again, just DON'T use the accusation of "intolerance" as if it were proof that the opposition is in the wrong. Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).

You seem to miss the crucial difference between disagreeing with someone and enacting laws that enforce one's intolerance unto others.

Btw, please put up with the sig.


Why? Just fix it already.

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

. . .

Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).

How the fuck can you agree with what I said, then say something that is the exact opposite? Do you know how to read?

For what it's worth, as I said, I don't think calling someone "intolerant" proves them wrong. They're not wrong because I call them intolerant.

They're intolerant because they are wrong.

Is it really the interests of children that are not preserved by prohibiting it, or the interests and sensibilities of adults with certain ideologies?

Feel free to read the opinion (http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/11/25/12/Redacted_Gill_Final_Judgment_of_Adoption_11.25.08.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf). It lays out the case rather firmly.

In particular, the children at issue have made a family with their same-sex foster parents for 4 years now. Both sides agreed the foster parents were exemplary and that the only reason they weren't allowed to adopt was because of their sexual orientation. The facts of the case are rather shocking really.

EDIT: BTW, I wish to reiterate one of the shocking facts: Florida encourages gays and lesbians to be foster parents, just not adoptive parents. So, even though everyone agreed these kids would be best off if adopted, that the foster parents were a good fit to adopt, and not allowing the foster parents to adopt would harm the kids, Florida wasn't going to allow the adoption.

Neo Art haha...I agree with all of that.

Again, just DON'T use the accusation of "intolerance" as if it were proof that the opposition is in the wrong. Because frankly, you are just as intolerant of his beliefs as he is to you (i.e. you are intolerant of the belief that man was only created to 'marry' female).
A) No. The word is being used correctly under the circumstances, and you do not get to order us to stop using it correctly just to suit you.

B) More strawmen? Do you carry a suitcase full of them around with you? First you enter a perfectly civil and positive thread and accuse people in general of saying things that nobody had said. Now you trot out an accusation that people are intolerant of a particular view that nobody even mentioned before you did.

It is clear that you entered this thread for no purpose but to provoke hostility -- and to invent it, if no one would take your bait.

Btw, please put up with the sig.

_______________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor
No. Fix it. Thank you.

I don't think supporting gay rights is intolerant of those who oppose gay rights but I do think saying 'I cant wait 'til the gay-haters get here so we can insult their position' is intolerent

No. Fix it. Thank you.

Meh...I'll have a word to one of the forum mods. Perhaps its just my PC...I'm certainly not entirely fond of the idea of having sigs that are invisible upon logging in.

Now you trot out an accusation that people are intolerant of a particular view that nobody even mentioned before you did.

Except for the creator of this thread. In which case, anyone who agrees also takes a similar, if not identical, standpoint.

Why is this important? Its no strawman...because if I were to be right (which so many of you are insisting upon dodging the logic) - then the room would be full of persons speaking hypocrisy, yes? So, of course they're not going to come around to it.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement. Again, those who oppose anti-gay worldviews are just as intolerant as their adversaries. But for what its worth, I wouldn't hesitate on betting that pro-gay movements would be happy to pass a law prohibiting opponents from passing laws against them. Which...you guessed it...steps into the policy-making arena.

So.... *don't call the kettle black*.

Also, the equivalent of Prop. 8 could theoretically be carried out (although I have little knowledge of how constitutional amendments work in Florida).


It already did. Amendments here need 60% to pass and Prop. 2 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_(2008)) got 62%.

I don't think supporting gay rights is intolerant of those who oppose gay rights but I do think saying 'I cant wait 'til the gay-haters get here so we can insult their position' is intolerent
Except that nobody said that, other than Narnian Council. What KoL said was that he couldn't wait until they did show up. He did not say anything more than that. I went back and checked.

It already did. Amendments here need 60% to pass and Prop. 2 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_(2008)) got 62%.

I apologize if I was unclear, but I meant the Prop. 8 (or Prop. 2) equivalent regarding homosexual adoption -- i.e., a move to override the court's constitutional decision by changing the state constitution.

Except that nobody said that, other than Narnian Council. What KoL said was that he couldn't wait until they did show up. He did not say anything more than that. I went back and checked.

And in all honosty, I didnt even mean "I cant wait till they show up!"


Id be perfectly happy if they never did. I just recognize the inevitable.


NC is only taking this line of arguement because his ideology has been defated, so hes ignoring the topic of this thred (the defeat of said ideology) to mak it look like we're all as intolerant as he is.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement.

...you seriously believe that? So, if my friend prefers Domingo to Pavarotti, and I prefer Pavarotti to Domingo, and say so, I'm being intolerant of her? Seriously?

Heck, just now I asked a friend if he liked pineapple upside-down cake, and he said no, despite the fact that I'd just mentioned that I liked it. How intolerant of him!

Except for the creator of this thread. In which case, anyone who agrees also takes a similar, if not identical, standpoint.

Why is this important? Its no strawman...because if I were to be right (which so many of you are insisting upon dodging the logic) - then the room would be full of persons speaking hypocrisy, yes? So, of course they're not going to come around to it.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement. Again, those who oppose anti-gay worldviews are just as intolerant as their adversaries. But for what its worth, I wouldn't hesitate on betting that pro-gay movements would be happy to pass a law prohibiting opponents from passing laws against them. Which...you guessed it...steps into the policy-making arena.

So.... *don't call the kettle black*.

Again, a niggling and pendantic point at best. A ridiculously absurd point in reality. Can we now return to some substantive discussion?

And I don't see "pro-gay movements" seeking to forbid opposite-sex marriages or heterosexual adoptions (or Christian marriages or fundamentalist adoptions), do you?

Meh...I'll have a word to one of the forum mods. Perhaps its just my PC...I'm certainly not entirely fond of the idea of having sigs that are invisible upon logging in.
Do that soon.

Except for the creator of this thread. In which case, anyone who agrees also takes a similar, if not identical, standpoint.
A strawman is when you set up an argument that nobody else was making and then you proceed to attack that propped up argument. I read the OP. He did not say what you accuse him of saying.

Why is this important? Its no strawman...because if I were to be right (which so many of you are insisting upon dodging the logic) - then the room would be full of persons speaking hypocrisy, yes? So, of course they're not going to come around to it.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement. Again, those who oppose anti-gay worldviews are just as intolerant as their adversaries. But for what its worth, I wouldn't hesitate on betting that pro-gay movements would be happy to pass a law prohibiting opponents from passing laws against them. Which...you guessed it...steps into the policy-making arena.

So.... *don't call the kettle black*.
No, no, and no.

It has already been explained to you precisely how and why nobody in this thread is being hypocritical in calling the Florida law and its supporters "intolerant.

It has already been explained to you precisely how and why it is correct -- just by dictionary definition -- to use the word "intolerant" to describe the Florida law and its supporters.

It has already been explained to you that nobody is buying your BS about how we're not allowed to use words even if they fit the subject.

And if the kettle is black, I'm going to say so. I really don't care if you don't like it.

I apologize if I was unclear, but I meant the Prop. 8 (or Prop. 2) equivalent regarding homosexual adoption -- i.e., a move to override the court's constitutional decision by changing the state constitution.

Sorry, I missed that. I really hope that doesn't happen.

Meh...I'll have a word to one of the forum mods. Perhaps its just my PC...I'm certainly not entirely fond of the idea of having sigs that are invisible upon logging in.

They will agree with us. Fix it. If you can't see sigs when you are logged in, that can also be fixed on your User CP screen.

Except for the creator of this thread. In which case, anyone who agrees also takes a similar, if not identical, standpoint.
Wrong. A) Neither OP (as this is a merged thread) takes that stance and B) each poster takes their own opinion...the OP does not dictate all of the supporters stances.
Why is this important? Its no strawman...because if I were to be right (which so many of you are insisting upon dodging the logic) - then the room would be full of persons speaking hypocrisy, yes? So, of course they're not going to come around to it. you agreed with Neo Art, while blatantly contradicting him in the same post. Your logic is highly lacking.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement. Again, those who oppose anti-gay worldviews are just as intolerant as their adversaries. But for what its worth, I wouldn't hesitate on betting that pro-gay movements would be happy to pass a law prohibiting opponents from passing laws against them. Which...you guessed it...steps into the policy-making arena.

So.... *don't call the kettle black*.
So, by your argument, anyone who ever disagrees with anyone is intolerant.

No. Sorry. I am tolerant of your position as such: I have not, nor will not kill you, harm you, or restrict your ability to state this position.

I, however, do not accept it, adhere to it, agree to it, or intend to do any of the above.

Tolerance is not acceptance or agreement. Tolerance is allowing people to hold any point of view, no matter how vile.

Heck, just now I asked a friend if he liked pineapple upside-down cake, and he said no, despite the fact that I'd just mentioned that I liked it. How intolerant of him!

Sorry, but your friend is a fucking bigot. :eek:

Alright...I know when a thread has the potential to go from discussion to flame-fest, and here is where it has potential to burn ablaze. So I'm out.

I'll let you try to work it out...and be quite the intolerant opposition to all the other little people who happen to disagree. Think about what I said, if you haven't already closed your mind to it.

And if the kettle is black, I'm going to say so. I really don't care if you don't like it.

Haha ok. 'Nuff said.

Also, just a note: intolerance is not only defined by policy-making decisions. I never mentioned that. Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement. Again, those who oppose anti-gay worldviews are just as intolerant as their adversaries. But for what its worth, I wouldn't hesitate on betting that pro-gay movements would be happy to pass a law prohibiting opponents from passing laws against them. Which...you guessed it...steps into the policy-making arena.

When they ACTUALLY DO THIS, you'll have a point.

But they haven't, so you don't.

YAy!

Alright...I know when a thread has the potential to go from discussion to flame-fest, and here is where it has potential to burn ablaze. So I'm out.

I'll let you try to work it out...and be quite the intolerant opposition to all the other little people who happen to disagree. Think about what I said, if you haven't already closed your mind to it.

Oh, how very big of you. :rolleyes:

Run away, little troll.

Alright...I know when a thread has the potential to go from discussion to flame-fest, and here is where it has potential to burn ablaze.

From your history on this forum, that point appears to be when you show up and start talking.

I'll let you try to work it out...and be quite the intolerant opposition to all the other little people who happen to disagree. Think about what I said, if you haven't already closed your mind to it.

So, I'm supposed to "open my mind" and suddenly respect all the bigots? No, I don't think I am going to be doing that. I'll keep calling bigots bigots, thanks.

And if they don't like that...well, that's really their problem. I see no reason why I should respect such a position that is so fundamentally undeserving of respect.

Except that nobody said that, other than Narnian Council. What KoL said was that he couldn't wait until they did show up. He did not say anything more than that. I went back and checked.

Maybe I was reading between the lines or maybe I was reading something I thought was between the lines. Regardless of what was said or intended if someone had said 'I cant wait 'til the gay-haters get here so we can insult their position' I would consider that to be intolerance of the intolerent.

EDIT -and if you disagree I'll kill ya!

Alright...I know when a thread has the potential to go from discussion to flame-fest, and here is where it has potential to burn ablaze. So I'm out.

I'll let you try to work it out...and be quite the intolerant opposition to all the other little people who happen to disagree. Think about what I said, if you haven't already closed your mind to it.



Haha ok. 'Nuff said.
This might be the best bail-out line I've seen.

EDIT: And by "best," I of course mean most pathetic.

Maybe I was reading between the lines or maybe I was reading something I thought was between the lines. Regardless of what was said or intended if someone had said 'I cant wait 'til the gay-haters get here so we can insult their position' I would consider that to be intolerance of the intolerent.

EDIT -and if you disagree I'll kill ya!
Which still is not an issue, since nobody in this thread (all two of them merged) has claimed to be tolerant of the intolerant.

Basically, Narnian just attempted and failed to start a fight by accusing everybody in the thread of saying something nobody had said. Now he has apparently given up that attempt.

Now he has apparently given up that attempt.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I thought you were leaving?

:rolleyes:
Another thing you failed at? :tongue:

VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad, it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic. Qualities indicative of good parenting include attentiveness, involvement in a child’s educational development, the ability to sooth, offer comfort, advice and a secure base for a child, the provision of resources and maintaining a warm, harmonious environment. The most important factor in ensuring a well adjusted child is the quality of parenting.

Similarly, a child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. More importantly, sexual orientation, solely, should not interfere with a child’s right to enjoy the accoutrements of a legal family. John and James, due to no fault of their own, were removed from an environment perilous to their physical, emotional and educational well being. Their biological parents relinquished them to the State, which in turn placed them into an environment that allowed them, eventually, to heal, and now flourish.

The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have reduced methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports. Some of the longitudinal studies have tracked children for six, ten and fourteen years. The starting ages of the children in the longitudinal studies has varied from birth, six to ten years old and followed them throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. The studies and reports are published in many well respected peer reviewed journals including the Journal of Child Development, the Journal of Family Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology, and the Journal of Child Psychiatry. Each of the studies and hundreds of reports also withstood the rigorous peer review process and were tested statistically, rationally and methodologically by seasoned professionals prior to publication.

In addition to the volume, the body of research is broad; comparing children raised by lesbian couples to children raised by married heterosexual couples; children raised by lesbian parents from birth to children raised by heterosexual married couples from birth; children raised by single homosexuals to children raised by single heterosexuals; and children adopted by homosexual parents to those raised by homosexual biological parents, to name a few. These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

The Guardian Ad Litem, the adoption agency and the assessing professionals agree that Petitioner and his domestic partner’s ability to parent is excellent. The quality of parenting, the level of bonding and attachment and the thriving relationship of the children with Petitioner, Roe and Tom Junior is uncontroverted by all parties to this litigation. This Court has presided over John and James case since its inception. This Court has presided over 58 hearings in their case and has had the opportunity to observe the children, Petitioner, and the growing relationship between them. It is clear to this Court that Petitioner is an exceptional parent to John and James who have healed in his care and are now thriving. Accordingly, Petitioner, John and James should be permitted to permanently and legally share the emotional, psychological, and familial bonds of parentage. Nevertheless, based on the law of this state, only a finding that the statute is unconstitutional will permit this Court to grant the petition.

Flawless logic Golfballs! ;)

EDIT: KoL, but naming them "intolerant bigots" is just a very...humorous...way to put it.

____________

NS2 Moderator: Largest Continent
CoN Lord Chancellor

They ARE intolerant bigots who should be offended at every point! It will be DELIGHTFUL to see them suffer due to seeing their views constantly challenged and the corrupt world they fought so hard to protect destroyed. Because that's what's gonna happen as people become more progressive. It will be DELIGHTFUL, ABSOLUTELY, to see them suffer, to see my boot on their faces. That's what they deserve.

And FIX YOUR GODDAMN SIGNATURE!

I'll let you try to work it out...and be quite the intolerant opposition to all the other little people who happen to disagree.

1- They are not "people", they are bigots. Bigots aren't people.

2- They don't "happen to disagree", they have a psychotic fantasy that must be curbed.

VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT
<snip>
To which I can only say, "Holy crap."

If anything makes clear the gross injustice of Florida's law, it is this. I sincerely hope this opinion will be referenced liberally in the fight to drag Florida, kicking and screaming probably, out of the dark ages.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

And if it says "Nevermore" it's probably a poe. That's what NC is starting to sound like here.

Intolerance is JUST as applicable to verbal agreement/disagreement.
No. It isn't. I am not seeking a law to take your children away from you on grounds that I verbally disagree with you: THAT would be intolerant.

Reading the fine print it appears that there's a shortage of adoptive parents for "special needs" and "African American children".

Given the actual market for healthy white babies (they're in such high demand that you actually have to pay for them), and the dearth of parents who want to adopt a "special needs" or "African American" child, you're shooting yourself in the foot by trying to keep gays from adopting children.

I apologize if I was unclear, but I meant the Prop. 8 (or Prop. 2) equivalent regarding homosexual adoption -- i.e., a move to override the court's constitutional decision by changing the state constitution.
The court here relies on federal, rather than (or in addition to) state, constitutional guarantees of equal protection. This opens up the door to an appeal beyond the Florida Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court; but closes the door to a state initiative amending the constitution to overturn it.

1- They are not "people", they are bigots. Bigots aren't people.

2- They don't "happen to disagree", they have a psychotic fantasy that must be curbed.

Do you ever consider not making comments that backfire on the point you are trying to make?

Saying that "bigots aren't people" doesn't serve any useful cause and is rather objectionable.

Do that soon.


A strawman is when you set up an argument that nobody else was making and then you proceed to attack that propped up argument. I read the OP. He did not say what you accuse him of saying.


No, no, and no.

It has already been explained to you precisely how and why nobody in this thread is being hypocritical in calling the Florida law and its supporters "intolerant.

It has already been explained to you precisely how and why it is correct -- just by dictionary definition -- to use the word "intolerant" to describe the Florida law and its supporters.

It has already been explained to you that nobody is buying your BS about how we're not allowed to use words even if they fit the subject.

And if the kettle is black, I'm going to say so. I really don't care if you don't like it.

The pot, on the other hand, is a shiny stainless steel.

The court here relies on federal, rather than (or in addition to) state, constitutional guarantees of equal protection. This opens up the door to an appeal beyond the Florida Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court; but closes the door to a state initiative amending the constitution to overturn it.

I'm afraid I beg to differ (to a degree). The Court holds:

This Court finds Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Petitioner and the Children’s equal protection rights guaranteed by Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution without satisfying a rational basis. Moreover, the statutory exclusion defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law pursuant to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

The equal protection claims are based on the Florida Constitution.

The denial of a fundamental right (child's right to permanency) claim appears to be based on both the U.S. and the Florida Constitution.

So, it is true that part of one holding by the court could be sustained theoretically on U.S. Constitutional grounds, even if the Florida Constitution changed. It is also true that that part of the decision could be reviewed federally. But the bulk of the opinion is a question of state constitutional law.

My bad, then. I waded through the whole opinion, but didn't feel like going back through it to see which "equal protection" clause they cited.

okay, florida allowing more rights to gays makes it another place to not visit

much as i dont plan to visit the hell on earth called USA anyway, that is unless some foreign nation like China or Russia invades USA, then im signing up to be part of the invasion force
:D

My bad, then. I waded through the whole opinion, but didn't feel like going back through it to see which "equal protection" clause they cited.

No worries. :wink:

I was impressed by the opinion and how it marshalls such a strong argument brick-by-brick. Beyond the outcome, what did you think of the opinion?

okay, florida allowing more rights to gays makes it another place to not visit
You are welcome to stay in Iran.

okay, florida allowing more rights to gays makes it another place to not visit

much as i dont plan to visit the hell on earth called USA anyway, that is unless some foreign nation like China or Russia invades USA, then im signing up to be part of the invasion force
:D

How terrible that Florida would allow children to be adopted by the exemplary foster parents that have raised them for the last 4 years? How ever will society survive? :rolleyes:

So, it is true that part of one holding by the court could be sustained theoretically on U.S. Constitutional grounds, even if the Florida Constitution changed. It is also true that that part of the decision could be reviewed federally. But the bulk of the opinion is a question of state constitutional law.

If I remember my SCOTUS jurisdiction rules correctly, the US supreme court actually CAN NOT review this case, because the ruling is based both on federal and state constitutional law.

My general understanding about SCOTUS jurisdiction is, they can not hear a case if they would be unable to change the outcome, regardless of their ruling. In other words, EVEN IF the US supreme court rules that Florida court improperly interpreted the federal constitution, it would not change the outcome of the ruling, because that ruling is based both on the federal and state constitution.

As such, SCOTUS can't actually change the outcome of the case, because they don't have jurisdiction to rule on an interpretation of the state constitution, and even if they overturned the Florida court in regards to its ruling on the federal constitution, the ruling itself still stands.

And as such, due to a quirk in SCOTUS jurisdiction, they can't actually hear the case because they can't change the outcome.

If I remember my SCOTUS jurisdiction rules correctly, the US supreme court actually CAN NOT review this case, because the ruling is based both on federal and state constitutional law.

My general understanding about SCOTUS jurisdiction is, they can not hear a case if they would be unable to change the outcome, regardless of their ruling. In other words, EVEN IF the US supreme court rules that Florida court improperly interpreted the federal constitution, it would not change the outcome of the ruling, because that ruling is based both on the federal and state constitution.

As such, SCOTUS can't actually change the outcome of the case, because they don't have jurisdiction to rule on an interpretation of the state constitution, and even if they overturned the Florida court in regards to its ruling on the federal constitution, the ruling itself still stands.

And as such, due to a quirk in SCOTUS jurisdiction, they can't actually hear the case because they can't change the outcome.

I believe you are correct and thank you for the clarification.

I was thinking SCOTUS could get involved if the Florida courts were to oveturn the decision on both state and federal grounds (or uphold it on federal grounds alone), then SCOTUS could theoretically hear the federal ground. But that gets pretty complicated (and unlikely). :eek:

Actually, it would be more humorous if the pot called the kettle black. Which is the point I'm trying to get across.


I actually don't find it to be intolerant at all. No one is denying these people their right to exist. No one is attempting to force them into a preformed mold. No one is forcing them to think a certain way. No where does it say "now that gays can adopt, everyone MUST love homosexuality". So, it's not really the pot calling the kettle black so much as the kettle telling the spork it can only be used as a spoon and the higher courts telling the pot to mind it's own damn business, the spork can function however the hell it wants.

I find this dicision to be delightful. That does not make me intolerant of the people who don't like it. Quite honestly, if these people weren't so damned determined to tell me who I can and cannot marry, I could give to shits what the hell they think.
____________

I actually don't find it to be intolerant at all. No one is denying these people their right to exist. No one is attempting to force them into a preformed mold. No one is forcing them to think a certain way. No where does it say "now that gays can adopt, everyone MUST love homosexuality". So, it's not really the pot calling the kettle black so much as the kettle telling the spork it can only be used as a spoon and the higher courts telling the pot to mind it's own damn business, the spork can function however the hell it wants.


You win. Great analogy!

So, it's not really the pot calling the kettle black so much as the kettle telling the spork it can only be used as a spoon and the higher courts telling the pot to mind it's own damn business, the spork can function however the hell it wants.


Most bizarre yet apt analogy ever.

okay, florida allowing more rights to gays makes it another place to not visit

much as i dont plan to visit the hell on earth called USA anyway, that is unless some foreign nation like China or Russia invades USA, then im signing up to be part of the invasion force
:D

Oh, don't worry, it will come to your country as well. And there's NOTHING you can do about it.

How does that make you feel?

Do you ever consider not making comments that backfire on the point you are trying to make?

Saying that "bigots aren't people" doesn't serve any useful cause and is rather objectionable.

I find "Ipso veneno bibas" to be an acceptable policy regarding bigots. :p

Most bizarre yet apt analogy ever.

Why thank you.

Though I notice I failed to edit pot to kettle the last time... blast you kitchenware!