The Irrationality of Florida's Gay Adoption Ban

As Jesse Walker noted this morning, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said on Friday he will not challenge a state appeals court ruling that overturned a law banning adoption by gay people. Since the Florida Department of Children and Families already had said it would not ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case (a decision that Gov. Charlie Crist supported), that means the law, the country's only explicit ban on all gay adoptions, has been lifted permanently. Last month Florida's Third District Court of Appeal found (PDF) there was no rational basis for discriminating against adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation:

Under Florida law, homosexual persons are allowed to serve as foster parents or guardians but are barred from being considered for adoptive parents. All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents, but not homosexual persons—even where, as here, the adoptive parent is a fit parent and the adoption is in the best interest of the children.

The Department has argued that evidence produced by its experts and [adoptive father Martin Gill's] experts supports a distinction wherein homosexual persons may serve as foster parents or guardians, but not adoptive parents. Respectfully, the portions of the record cited by the Department do not support the Department's position. We conclude that there is no rational basis for the statute.

Agreeing with Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman, the appeals court said the adoption ban therefore violated the Florida Constitution's equal protection provision:

All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property.

The court applied a "rational basis" test because "the parties and trial court agreed that this case does not involve a fundamental right or suspect class." Although rational basis review is quite deferential, it is not hard to see why the court concluded that Florida's ban was not "based on a real difference which is reasonably related to the subject and purpose of the regulation." For one thing, "the trial court found, and all parties agree, that [Gill] is a fit parent and that the adoption is in the best interest of the children." Furthermore, "the parties agree 'that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents.'" The gay adoption ban not only failed to serve children's best interests, which is supposed to be the overriding aim of  adoption law; it undermined this goal by arbitrarily excluding candidates who could have given homes to children who would otherwise go unadopted.

The only expert witness who actually testified in support of the ban was this guy. I discussed Lederman's ruling in a column last year. Steve Chapman made the case for gay adoption in a 2008 column. Julian Sanchez methodically disassembled the arguments for banning gay adoption in a 2005 Reason article.

Comments

[zoltan]

"this guy" is a bad link. Too many www's.

[Karen]

Fix the link, please!

[Mister DNA]

Here is the non-SugarFreed link.

[Old Mexican]

The Irrationality of Florida's Gay Adoption Ban.

What's irrational about it? The problem lies not on the ban itself for it follows the Golden Rule, as in what would YOU prefer, being raised by one loving father and one loving mother, or instead by two women or two men even if they're loving also?

(In other words, why would you want something on somebody that YOU would NOT want on YOURSELF?)

The problem resides with adoptions being managed by Government, with its "one size fits none" kind of mentality. Let adoption agencies be private in a private market, assuring that children WILL be placed in the best homes possible.

And before somebody gives me crap about private agencies placing children in "bad" homes, how about the various Child Protection Service offices placing children in abusive "foster homes"? Government strives to make anything "better," including child abuse, neglect and killing.

[R C Dean]

Since the choice for too many kids isn't being adopted by a hetero couple or being adopted by a gay couple, its being adopted by a gay couple or not adpoted at all:

I think this decision is Good for the Childrenz.

Of course, its also the decent thing to do.

That's how you do it, Obama. You don't have to fight to the last ditch to defend every single law.

[Old Mexican]

Re: R C Dean,

Since the choice for too many kids isn't being adopted by a hetero couple or being adopted by a gay couple, its being adopted by a gay couple or not adopted at all.

Let's say that the choice was "gay couple" and "none at all." How exactly does giving a child in adoption to a gay couple be a better thing that waiting for a loving father and mother? Is the argument based on hurry? On time preference? Wouldn't the adoption agency prefer the bigger payoff of a straight couple instead of the immediate payoff of placing the child immediately?

Granted, the adoption policy SHOULD be up to the adoption agency, where the mother can choose between a more traditional policy or a more expedient policy. I would NOT give the government any power over this decision one IOTA.

But, again, there's nothing irrational about not wanting to give a child to a gay couple in adoption, as it follows the Golden Rule - what would YOU have prefered: being raised by a loving father and mother, or being raised by two women or two men, even if they are loving? If I would not choose the gay couple as my hypothetical parents, why would I want them one someone else?

[Mo]

Because outcomes of children raised by gay couples are no worse than those raised by straight couples. However, children do far worse when raised in the foster care system then when raised by parents. Also, as children age, they are less likely to be adopted.

I personally would not care whether my parents were two guys or two women as long as they provided love and creature comforts like my parents did. I'd totally dig it even more if my imaginary gay parents got me an DB9 Volante, unlike my cheapskate real parents.

[zoltan]

No shit, if gay men were my parents I would have gotten awesome Clinique make-up and fancy clothing sprees at the Galleria.

[The Gobbler]

^^THIS^^

It's all relative.

[SIV]

What if they were vegan gay women?

[zoltan]

Then my high-school phase of retarded eating would have fit right in with them.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

I personally would not care whether my parents were two guys or two women as long as they provided love and creature comforts like my parents did.

Would you then impose gay parents on a child?

[Mo]

Would you impose straight, white, black, Asian, etc. parents on a child? Or is it only imposing if the parents are gay? I'm sure the kids get a say, if they're old enough, of whether or not they want to be with those parents. Most kids in foster care want to be in a stable loving household. They don't see it as an imposition.

Why not let the adoption agency decide who the parents should be. Seems like they have a much better idea of what's in those kids' interest than a bunch of politicians in Tallahassee or random kultur war voters. The law doesn't say kids have to e adopted by gay parents, just that gay parents can adopt.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

Would you impose straight, white, black, Asian, etc. parents on a child? Or is it only imposing if the parents are gay?

Depends - would they be straight Asian, black or white, or gay Asian, black or white?

Most kids in foster care want to be in a stable loving household. They don't see it as an imposition.

I haven't polled them all, I cannot be as sure as you present yourself to be.

Why not let the adoption agency decide who the parents should be. Seems like they have a much better idea of what's in those kids' interest than a bunch of politicians in Tallahassee or random kultur war voters.

I already said that. The problem resides with letting government have the power to either ban certain adoptions or encourage them, as either one leads to impositions.

The law doesn't say kids have to [b]e adopted by gay parents, just that gay parents can adopt.

I would not have a law that said ANYTHING either way - the law that says "gays can adopt" pretty much creates an entitlement. People are NOT entitled to adopt, it is a privilege granted by the mother of the child.

[Mo]

I would not have a law that said ANYTHING either way - the law that says "gays can adopt" pretty much creates an entitlement. People are NOT entitled to adopt, it is a privilege granted by the mother of the child.

Considering all this case did was overturn a law that said that gay parents can't adopt, that's exactly the way things stand now in Florida. So why are you going apeshit over this then?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

You haven't read any of the posts, have you? I am not going apeshit on the overturning of the law. I am arguing that the thinking behind the ban is NOT irrational as Jacob Sullum seemed to imply (I may be wrong); and that the BAN itself should not be taken as argument against the idea that children should be placed with loving straight parents first, based on the Golden Rule.

[zoltan]

Then what's the cutoff? The kid who had to stay in CPS until he was 18 because s/he was waiting on a "loving mother and father" isn't too happy with your interpretation of the Golden Rule. Face it, there are three choices: getting heterosexual parents sooner or later, getting homosexual parents sooner or later, or getting no parents. As there is still no evidence that homosexual parents are as bad as you're implying, especially in consideration of not getting any at all, I dont get the golden rule argument. And you still haven't addressed that private adoption agencies will make this choice for some children and that the ban was hindering the probable occurrence of this happening in a private market.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Zoltan,

Then what's the cutoff? The kid who had to stay in CPS until he was 18 because he was waiting on a "loving mother and father" isn't too happy with your interpretation of the Golden Rule.

You brought the CPS up, not I.

As there is still no evidence that homosexual parents are as bad as you're implying[...]

I did not imply that. Your statement is thus fallacious.

And you still haven't addressed that private adoption agencies will make this choice for some children[...]

I did address it: "[T]he adoption policy SHOULD be up to the adoption agency, where the mother can choose between a more traditional policy or a more expedient policy. I would NOT give the government any power over this decision one IOTA."

and that the ban was hindering the probable occurrence of this happening in a private market.

The problem with assuming the government should or should not ban this or that lies in the power you grant the State.

What would happen if the REVERSE was true: That the State MADE adoption agencies place children into adoption with gay couples as a matter of policy? What if adoption agencies start being sued by gay couples for "discrimination," as policy banning the thorough and systematic search for straight couples is imposed? Would YOU then call that ban "irrational"?

[zoltan]

what's the cutoff? The kid who had to stay in CPS until he was 18 because he was waiting on a "loving mother and father" isn't too happy with your interpretation of the Golden Rule.

You brought the CPS up, not I.

It works the same with private agencies though. A child langushing in a private adoption agency would not be allowed to have gay parents adopt him/her either.

I don't really care about the reverse happening; I care about a restriction on private decisions (hence, irrational) being lifted. If the reverse happened and the State required ANY restrictions on adoption then you should be opposed to it. You haven't even stated your position on this; you're just running around my points instead of addressing them.

Why should the state have the power to restrict private adoption agencies from making choices they think are the most beneficial for the orphans in their custody?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Zoltan,

Why should the state have the power to restrict private adoption agencies from making choices they think are the most beneficial for the orphans in their custody?

The State shouldn't have a say EITHER WAY. A total BAN on gay adoption leads to the problems YOU worry about, and something totally contrary to a ban would lead to QUOTAS and an ENTITLEMENT mentality.

What I argue is that thinking it is preferable to give a child to loving straight parents first is NOT irrational, and that the BAN itself should NOT be used to declare the argument irrational. What *IS* irrational is giving the power to the State to decide EITHER WAY.

[Tony]

It seems reasonable to assume that lots of gay couples would actively seek to adopt. As long as they meet the standard qualifications, I don't see what the problem is (other than homophobia of course). I take issue with your implication that the scale goes something like not adopted < gay parents < straight parents. The last two should be considered equal based on all available evidence, and the only reason not to consider them equally suitable for raising children is, again, prejudice. Of course I'm not without prejudice in this matter: I believe that children of gay parents are all the more likely to grow up tolerant, decent people.

[SIV]

I believe that children of gay parents are all the more likely to grow up tolerant, decent people.

Are they more likely to grow up gay?
If your answer is "no" please provide citation.

[Mo]

No.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

[SIV]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ?
What would your English teacher say?

[Tony]

Of course not. Here.

It's possible that gay children of gay couples are more likely to come out earlier, but what would make you think having gay adoptive parents would make children more likely to be gay? Most gay people had straight parents, you know.

[SIV]

Some say Yes

[Mo]

Some is usually >1. And most studies are more rigorous than a meta-analysis of texts.

[SIV]

There are no "rigorous" studies here.This is a PC Pandora's box.

But also in his testimony was an inkling of the robust research Schumm has just completed. His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay.

[TrickyVic]

AOL News? What would your teacher say?

[SIV]

Read the link: they actually interview the researcher and talk about the method and data in the forthcoming study. Mo and Tony's links are of the "leading pro-gay experts say un-cited studies support whatever the current PC fashion on homosexuality is" variety.

[The Gobbler]

"I believe that children of gay parents are all the more likely to grow up tolerant, decent people."

And ^^THIS^^.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

It seems reasonable to assume that lots of gay couples would actively seek to adopt. As long as they meet the standard qualifications, I don't see what the problem is[.]

The problem resides with the government telling people what to do or not do.

I take issue with your implication that the scale goes something like not adopted < gay parents < straight parents.

I don't present that scale. I am presenting an argument that trying to give a child to a loving straight couple before a gay couple is NOT irrational, rather it is based on the Golden Rule.

I believe that children of gay parents are all the more likely to grow up tolerant, decent people.

"All the more likely"?

[Julian Sanchez]

But you don't make an argument. You assert your own groundless preference against gay parents and then launder it through the Golden Rule. You could use the same absurd means to justify a ban on adoption by any group against which you have an irrational prejudice. Come to think of it, I'd absolutely hate to have had to grow up in a religious household...

The idea that the law shouldn't speak to this either way is just confused. There is either a ban, or there isn't a ban. There's no middle option. This business about "entitlements" and "quotas" is a fantasy existing nowhere outside your imagination.

Finally, the idea that privets agencies can somehow take charge of adoption with no state involvement couldn't possibly be advanced by anyone who'd given this five minutes of serious thought. Kids aren't in the foster system because someone made a contract to transfer parental rights. They're there because their parents either died without immediate family capable of taking charge of the kids, or were abusive or otherwise unfit. The state is inevitably involved.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Julian Sanchez,

But you don't make an argument. You assert your own groundless preference against gay parents and then launder it through the Golden Rule.

"Groundless." Right. It is as "groundless" as prefering a pair of shoes that has one left and one right, instead of two lefts or two rights.

You could use the same absurd means to justify a ban on adoption by any group against which you have an irrational prejudice.

I don't advocate bans of any sort.

Come to think of it, I'd absolutely hate to have had to grow up in a religious household...

I absolutely hate not having been born a blond surfer . . . but I managed to cope. If you can't, there's always the Hemlock Solution.

The idea that the law shouldn't speak to this either way is just confused.

That's your problem.

There is either a ban, or there isn't a ban.

If there is NO ban, then there's no LAW either way.

This business about "entitlements" and "quotas" is a fantasy existing nowhere outside your imagination.

Yeah, right. Think what happens when marriage between homosexuals becomes "legal": Homosexuals then sue churches that dare NOT marry them. You think that does not happen?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.s.....ch_gr.html

Finally, the idea that priv[ate] agencies can somehow take charge of adoption with no state involvement couldn't possibly be advanced by anyone who'd given this five minutes of serious thought.

Oh, you're a socialist, then.

Kids aren't in the foster system because someone made a contract to transfer parental rights. They're there because their parents either died without immediate family capable of taking charge of the kids, or were abusive or otherwise unfit. The state is inevitably involved.

First, nothing is "inevitable". Second, charity organizations, especially from churches, have taken children of dead parents many times in modern history. The State involved itself because that is what governments do: they metastasize.

[The Gobbler]

Fuck you OM. My lesbian sister and he partner had a baby in May. It was birthed by my suster's partner. My sister is he legally adopted parent and I defy you to come up with a single, non-prejudicial reason why my neice would be better off with a straight couple instead of a couple of wealthy lesbians. That neice of mine is the most fortunate kid on the planet.

[The Gobbler]

I'm planning on taking a spelling class next semester.

[Abdul]

My lesbian sister and he partner

Please don't take that spelling class! This is so much better.

[Old Mexican]

Re: The Gobbler,

My lesbian sister and he[r] partner had a baby in May. It was birthed by my s[i]ster's partner.

AND?????

I defy you to come up with a single, non-prejudicial reason why my neice would be better off with a straight couple instead of a couple of wealthy lesbians.

Are you dense? Your sister did not give the baby to adoption, she KEPT IT!

We're talking about totally different things, you just brought this red herring to get a leg up. Go fly a kite, asshole!

[Mo]

That adoption would be illegal under the Florida law that you're defending.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

I am not defending the ban. I made it clear that the argument behind the ban is NOT irrational precisely because people would then construe the argument for not giving a child in adoption to a gay couple instead of a straight couple as irrational ALL BECAUSE OF THE BAN ITSELF, that's all - which is EXACTLY what happened, given the tone of most postings here.

What would be irrational is to give the State the power to decide EITHER WAY.

[fyodor]

I would think that privatizing foster care and adoptions and de-regulating the process would amount to not having such a legal ban, right? I don't know how much of the formalities of adoption are monopolized by the state in Florida, but regardless, it would seem that overturning the ban would move things closer to what you favor, no?

As for what's irrational, I don't think that's a very useful term for public policy. How about wrongheaded, stupid, or self-defeating (as in the results being counter to its purpose)? I like those better. How about you?

[Old Mexican]

Re: Fyodor,

I would think that privatizing foster care and adoptions and de-regulating the process would amount to not having such a legal ban, right?

As long as privatizing means "I will not interfere," instead of "Get your licenses here! Step right over!!"

As for what's irrational, I don't think that's a very useful term for public policy.

That's not the issue. The problem resides in debating the ban on terms of the rationality of the argument in favor of preferring heterosexual couples over homosexual couples. The ban itself should not be construed as evidence in favor or against this argument - that's my point.

[generic Brand]

That adoption would be illegal under the Florida law that you're defending.

What adoption? I'm not really with Old Mexican on this one, but The Gobbler's sis went by way of artificial insemination (I'm assuming) and had a natural birth and therefore the baby is partially blood related.

[Mo]

The kid is porn to one of the lesbian couple and the other has to adopt in order to gain parental rights. So one has to adopt. In this case it was gobbler's sis

[Mo]

The kid is porn to one of the lesbian couple and the other has to adopt in order to gain parental rights. So one has to adopt. In this case it was gobbler's sis

[The Gobbler]

"Are you dense? Your sister did not give the baby to adoption, she KEPT IT!"

My sister didn't give birth, her partner did. In order to gain legal protection, she legally adopted the child. Some states (I believe) would not allow her, a gay woman, to adopt a baby.

But to my broader point. Better to be raised by two wealthy parenthood-committed lesbians than some piece of shit wife-beater and his fear-plagued wife.

[zoltan]

Yeah, but this ban prevented private agencies from putting children in the best home they deemed possible if those best homes happened to be homosexual. That's what's irrational: government keeping private agencies from making that decision in the first place.

[Pip]

"What's irrational about it? The problem lies not on the ban itself for it follows the Golden Rule, as in what would YOU prefer, being raised by one loving father and one loving mother, or instead by two women or two men even if they're loving also?"

I don't care as long as none of them are Mexican.

[zoltan]

No kidding; I'd rather have a white family considering they have the lowest incidence of molestation and sexual abuse.

[Les]

The problem lies not on the ban itself for it follows the Golden Rule, as in what would YOU prefer, being raised by one loving father and one loving mother, or instead by two women or two men even if they're loving also?

What if the "YOU" in question prefers to be adopted by a same-sex couple to languishing in state care as an orphan?

That's exactly why the ban is irrational. It excludes the possibility of being adopted by a same-sex couple even if that what "YOU" (the orphan, that is) wants.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Les,

What if the "YOU" in question prefers to be adopted by a same-sex couple to languishing in state care as an orphan?

If those are the only choices... but that is like asking "what would you prefer, torture or death?"

That's exactly why the ban is irrational. It excludes the possibility of being adopted by a same-sex couple even if that what "YOU" (the orphan, that is) wants.

It seems very unlikely that orphans are being asked for their preferences either way, Les. The BAN itself is NOT based on irrationality. What's irrational is letting the government decide in these matters either way.

The problem with the ban is NOT that it is based on irrationality in itself (which is not, given the Golden Rule), the problem is with the government determining what it good and what is not. That's giving the government too much power.

[zoltan]

And private adoption agencies will make that horrible choice for children to be put in gay homes instead of the government doing it. As there is no evidence from these children that gay parents are significantly or even slightly worse than heterosexual couples, I don't know how you can say it's equivalent to torture (on the scale of not being tortured and death) to be adopted by gay parents. The problem with your golden rule is that there are children who would rather have gay parents and there are adults who would rather see children go to gay parents--not because it's better than nothing, but because the evidence shows it's no worse.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Zoltan,

I don't know how you can say it's equivalent to torture[...]

I didn't say it. What I am indicating is the false dichotomy you posited.

The problem with your golden rule is that there are children who would rather have gay parents and there are adults who would rather see children go to gay parents

You cannot know that, zoltan. And who cares what these "adults" think, anyway? Are you taking about the mothers of the children being placed in adoption, or policy makers?

[...] not because it's better than nothing, but because the evidence shows it's no worse.

Again, I don't subscribe to the false dichotomy of gay-or-nothing. I place those decisions on the mother of the child.

[zoltan]

The mother of the child did not have this choice in the first place with Florida's ban. Florida's IRRATIONAL ban took that choice away from the mother due to bigotry.

[Mo]

Again, I don't subscribe to the false dichotomy of gay-or-nothing. I place those decisions on the mother of the child.

It's not a false dichotomy. The only way this would be a false dichotomy would be if 100% of all kids were eventually adopted in Florida, which is not the case. There are actual kids that are stuck in the foster care system bouncing around until they age out at 18. A non-zero number of those kids would be adopted by gay parents but couldn't be because of the law.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

The only way this would be a false dichotomy would be if 100% of all kids were eventually adopted in Florida[.]

No, you don't understand. What makes your argument being based on a false dichotomy is that you assume there would be absolutely no other choices whatsoever.

That's why I pointed out the absurdity of it.

A non-zero number of those kids would be adopted by gay parents but couldn't be because of the law.

And how about kids being placed in adoption with gay parents because of a quota?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....genda.html

[Mo]

Ooh, look, I have heartbreaking anecdotes too.

http://gayrights.change.org/bl.....nal_family

http://thewordsonwhat.wordpres.....-families/

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

Nevertheless, the example I indicated illustrates my point: That once the government makes something legal, it becomes an entitlement very quickly.

Remember Roe v. Wade, and how it has morphed from "abortion is a right" to "tax-payer funded abortion is a right"?

[The Gobbler]

"If those are the only choices... but that is like asking "what would you prefer, torture or death?""

The only thing tortured here is your logic.

[SugarFree]

It took me a second, but I realize that OM is basing everything on that great conservative fallacy that adoption is a perfectly healthy days-old infant being handed off to a tragically infertile heterosexual couple in their 20s. And that there is an infinite line of those perfect couples stretching out into the distance, all clamoring to adopt.

You know, the same fantasy they base banning abortions on by bringing up adoption.

[Old Mexican]

Re: SugarFree,

I would like to have the same power you presume to have, SF, that of being able to read minds.

I made no such assertion, nor did I even imply it, unless you are like that person that just *knows* he's personally insulted by the newspapers by reading "between the lines."

[SugarFree]

You don't have to get all whiny about it.

You are the one making the nonsense argument that foster care is better than be adopted by a gay couple. Which you are basing on torturing the Golden Rule to ridiculousness. You are making the case that "good enough" must always be subordinate to "perfect." And wrapping it in anti-gay bullshit about a mile thick.

Life isn't perfect, in fact for a lot of these kids it's down right shitty. If a couple is cleared to adopt a child in every way except they have sex in ways you don't approve of, the adoption should take place.

[Old Mexican]

Re: SugarFree,

You are the one making the nonsense argument that foster care is better than be adopted by a gay couple.

You mean *I*, of ALL PEOPLE, said that a totally disfunctional government-managed system that treats kids slightly worse than slaves, is better than adoption by gay couples?

I must be getting off my rocker, then.

By the way, where did I say that?

This is my argument:

"I made it clear that the argument behind the ban is NOT irrational precisely because people would then construe the argument for not giving a child in adoption to a gay couple instead of a straight couple as irrational ALL BECAUSE OF THE BAN ITSELF, that's all - which is EXACTLY what happened, given the tone of most postings here.

What would be irrational is to give the State the power to decide EITHER WAY."

As I indicated many times, the argument for prefering straight couples for children given to adoption is not irrational because of the Golden Rule, and that the BAN itself should NOT be used to conclude the argument is irrational.

I have made it clear that adoption policies should be placed by the adoption agencies, whether they prefer traditional parents or gay parents when deciding to place children. The OBVIOUS danger of the BAN is not the BAN itself, it is giving the State power of decision, as something totally contrary to a BAN leads directly to QUOTAS and ENTITLEMENTS.

[SugarFree]

If your argument is just that the State shouldn't be running adoptions, I can agree with that. But you want to wrap that in a bunch of anti-gay bullshit.

And, for the the 80 billionth time: not making something illegal that shouldn't be illegal in the first place is not the same as encouraging it. That is a statist argument for total control.

[Old Mexican]

Re: SugarFree,

And, for the the 80 billionth time: not making something illegal that shouldn't be illegal in the first place is not the same as encouraging it.

Thanks for reminding me of something I have said also, like a billion times (if we're getting on the exaggeration game)

The problem is not with making something not-illegal., which is what you said and I have said many times on many topics. The problem is with making it "legal," (that is, placing it on paper) as it can then be used to FORCE adoptions in favor of gay couples. That is JUST AS BAD as a ban on adoption to gay couples.

[SugarFree]

Your fallacy is thinking that being against the ban is being for the quota. No one here said that, your increasingly hysterical assertions aside.

And if you are worried about the existence or suggestion of a gay adoption ban triggering a backlash of gay adoption quotas, bring it up with the anti-gay bigoted retards that thought up the ban in the first place.

[Old Mexican]

Re: SugarFree,

Your fallacy is thinking that being against the ban is being for the quota.

Well, are you? Because I did not say such a thing nor implied it. Being against it is certainly NOT for being in favor of quotas. That's not the issue.

No one here said that, your increasingly hysterical assertions aside.

*I* did not say it, your innuendo aside.

And if you are worried about the existence or suggestion of a gay adoption ban triggering a backlash of gay adoption quotas, bring it up with the anti-gay bigoted retards that thought up the ban in the first place.

I don't have to, they're NOT the ones to blame, they have no real power - only government.

[generic Brand]

Old Mexican,

The problem is not with making something not-illegal., which is what you said and I have said many times on many topics. The problem is with making it "legal," (that is, placing it on paper) as it can then be used to FORCE adoptions in favor of gay couples.

I probably have a poor understanding of how court rulings work, but I thought by overturning the ban on gays adopting it took the law OFF the books not put a new law on. Therefore it isn't about "declaring" it legal, it's about saying that it isn't and never should have been illegal.

[zoltan]

As I indicated many times, the argument for prefering straight couples for children given to adoption is not irrational because of the Golden Rule

You cannot know this.

[Old Mexican]

Re: zoltan,

You cannot know this.

Yes, I can, you idiot. It is a conclusion from a logical argument. That's how one *knows* things - it is called epistemology.

[Mo]

As I indicated many times, the argument for prefering straight couples for children given to adoption is not irrational because of the Golden Rule, and that the BAN itself should NOT be used to conclude the argument is irrational.

By the irrefutable logic of the Golden Rule, doesn't overturning the ban make sense. I would not want people to make a law prohibiting me to adopt just because of the people I have sex with, so I should not support making it illegal for others to adopt based on who they choose to adopt.

Also, most kids don't want to think of their parents having sex, whether they're straight or not.

[zoltan]

Seriously, the Golden Rule argument is retarded. I'd rather have gay parents than the government as my parent. What people want done unto them is different strokes for different folks.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

By the irrefutable logic of the Golden Rule, doesn't overturning the ban make sense[?]

Does it give any other indication, Mo?

I should not support making it illegal for others to adopt based on who they choose to adopt.

I don't support making it illegal nor do I support making it legal, as BOTH open the door to government activism.

[Mo]

I don't support making it illegal nor do I support making it legal, as BOTH open the door to government activism.

Something is either legal or illegal, it can't be both and it can't be neither. It has to be one or the other, so either you support it being legal or illegal.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Mo,

Something is either legal or illegal, it can't be both and it can't be neither.

Mo, that's positivism. Is the act of choosing what music to listen to legal, or illegal? If legal, show me the statute. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

[Tony]

I did.

[Les]

Strange. Are you saying a ban on inter-racial couples adopting would not be irrational? Are you saying that if a child was free to say "yes" or "no" to a prospective adoptive couple, the law prohibiting same-sex adoption would then be irrational?

[SugarFree]

And as the political football gets bloodier and bloodier being passed back and forth, kids in foster care, many of whom would be happy to be adopted by anyone--married, unmarried, straight, gay, or other--who wanted to adopt them, languish in foster care as wards of the state.

[The Gobbler]

Preps them for prision.

[Pip]

But what if i want to adopt a gay kid?

[Michael Ejercito]

One important fact to consider about the Florida adoption ban is that it excluded homosexuals, but not other non-married people , from adopting children.

[zoltan]

Would you rather the child go to a single mother or gay parents? That's like choosing between waterboarding and fingernail-pulling.

[Old Mexican]

Or like between an asshole and a dick.

[zoltan]

Keep trying. Your pathetic attempt to clothe your bigotry in rationality keeps failing.

[Old Mexican]

Oh, so now I am a bigot. That's the level of logical discourse now: Dem-like.

[SIV]

New here?

[zoltan]

You are a bigot. You're trying to say that the government overturning a ban on the choices of private individuals will turn Florida into a place where poor orphaned children are forced into the evil hands of gay couples.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Zoltan,

You are a bigot. You're trying to say that the government overturning a ban on the choices of private individuals will turn Florida into a place where poor orphaned children are forced into the evil hands of gay couples.

See how you resort to appeals to emotion?

What I argue is that one cannot give such power to the government, either way. The ban is bad because it gives power to government to interfere in private choices, but also lets the door open to lawsuits against private adoption agencies when gay adoption becomes "legal."

The point is, if you can get it in your thick skull, is that adoption in itself should be neither legal or illegal - that's legal positivism.

The question is: Is adoption by gays moral? If yes, then proceed. No? Then, DON'T. Once you make it legal, gays will SUE adoption agencies if they think these agencies are "discriminating" against them, turning adoption into an entitlement.

Same thing happens when morality is legislated everywhere else. Remember the Civil Rights Act of '64?

[fyodor]

Wait a sec, Old Mexican. You seem to agree that the ban is bad, yet so is making gay adoption legal?? I see your point about privatizing the process, but I don't see how you can have the absence of a ban on gay adoption without "making" (a better word I think would be "allowing") gay adoption to be legal. On that point, Julian is right, either you have a ban or you don't!

[Old Mexican]

Re: Fyodor,

Wait a sec, Old Mexican. You seem to agree that the ban is bad, yet so is making gay adoption legal??

Let me put it to you this way:

Should adopting puppies be legal? That is, should there be a statute that indicates such adoptions are legal? What would you think comes next after that?

Hint: Licensing, paperwork, lawsuits, new laws, puppy rights advocates, and a seemingly endless host of rent-seekers.

See my point? If you made pencil usage legal, you would have later to get a license to sharpen your pencil.

On that point, Julian is right, either you have a ban or you don't!

fyodor, not having a ban on something cannot be construed as it being legal. You don't need a law that says "it is ok to kiss your wife" in order to be able to kiss your wife. Same should be with everything else. The only thing required from government (if at all) is the protection of contracts and against fraud.

[Julian Sanchez]

If you think theres anything remotely rational about excluding the possibility of adoption by a gay couple and remaining in the foster system, on the assumption that whatever heterosexual couple came along would be superior -- then yes, that is obviously precisely what you are.

[Michael Ejercito]

Attorney General Bill McCollum is not exactly a champion of gay rights.

I wonder if he chose not to appeal this ruling to limit the "damage" to Florida's Third Appellate District (much like how President George W. Bush indicted Jose Padilla to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from upholding the Fourth Circuit ruling mandating Padilla's release or indictment).

[prolefeed]

How exactly does giving a child in adoption to a gay couple be a better thing that waiting for a loving father and mother?

You're assuming that a gay couple can't be a loving couple, or else that a loving heterosexual couple is going to ALWAYS be a better choice than a loving gay couple.

I'm just not buying either premise. Gays can be just as good parents as hetero couples.

[Old Mexican]

Re: prolefeed,

You're assuming that a gay couple can't be a loving couple, or else that a loving heterosexual couple is going to ALWAYS be a better choice than a loving gay couple.

Indeed, my assumtion is a prioristic, the same way thinking the Universe obeys natural laws is an assumption, but one has to start from somewhere prolefeed.

I don't assume a heterosexual couple will always be better than a homosexual couple - I would be dwelling in absolutes; what I do is assume is that all other things being equal, a child would be better with a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple in the very same way I would be better having a pair of shoes where one is a left and the other is a right, instead of two rights or two lefts.

I'm just not buying either premise. Gays can be just as good parents as hetero couples.

That's only your opinion. I don't *know* that, which is why I have to start from an a priori assumption that tells me, ceteris paribus, a heterosexual couple would be better for a child than a homosexual couple, if I were given the choice on which I would prefer. If I prefer a heterosexual couple as parents for ME than a homosexual couple, then why would I chose the other on someone else?

[dhex]

If I prefer a heterosexual couple as parents for ME than a homosexual couple, then why would I chose the other on someone else?

let me know what you prefer for breakfast; i wouldn't want to step on the golden rule's toes every single a.m. with two left shoes and syrup on the side.

[fyodor]

what I do is assume is that all other things being equal, a child would be better with a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple in the very same way I would be better having a pair of shoes where one is a left and the other is a right, instead of two rights or two lefts.

This seems to be a first principle for you. I take it, then, that no experience based evidence regarding how well children seem to do with gay parents would change your mind, huh?

[Les]

what I do is assume is that all other things being equal, a child would be better with a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple in the very same way I would be better having a pair of shoes where one is a left and the other is a right, instead of two rights or two lefts.

This is ridiculous. Two left shoes compared to a left and a right shoe cannot be used in a comparison you've prefaced with "all things being equal."

Two left shoes are inherently wrong. Gay parents are not.

[Old Mexican]

Two left shoes compared to a left and a right shoe cannot be used in a comparison you've prefaced with "all things being equal."

All other things being equal. Read my post again.

Two left shoes are inherently wrong. Gay parents are not.

You're begging the question.

[Duckie]

Your claim that you are not bigoted rings amazingly hollow when you admit you're arguing from an "a priori assumption" that gay couples make inferior parents due solely to their gayness ("ceteris paribus").

Much of your "Golden Rule" argument seems to rest on the fact that you, personally, would prefer to be raised by a straight couple. You haven't yet given us a compelling reason why your personal preferences should be at all relevant.

[J sub D]

Old Mexican,

Gay adoptive parents or Jehovah's Witness parents?

Gay parents or socialist hippie parents?

Gay parents or Jim and Tammy Faye?

Gay parents or Stormfront member parents?

If you picked anything other than gay in any of the choices presented you're a fucking moron.

[Al Wayswright]

Conferring totalitarian state privileges to persons because of their sexual fetish -- homosexism -- is a most bizarre commentary upon a people.

Historians 500 years from now shall see the same decadence in Americans as historians today see in ancient Greeks and ancient Romans, unless of course, the historian happens to be a pervy homosexist.

[OO=====D]

Kis me again, al! Kiss me again!

[Glenn Q]

Two halfs can't make whole without a hole, giggidy giggidy goo.

[Paul]

The Irrationality of Florida's Gay Adoption Ban

To counter this stupidity, Reason should declare November "Adopt-a-gay" month.

[Paul]

All of us long to connect with the father and mother from whom we came from. Children who need adoption are in a state of deprivation. Their longing for a father can only be replaced by a man, and their longing for a mother can only be replaced by a women.

[zoltan]

And when a man and woman don't want them the state gets them.

[Ben]

Irrational hey? How arrogant! Not according to my biology textbook.

Clearly, the adults-only libertarians on this site aren't aware that fatherlessness and crimes against private properties are good friends. Purposefully designing families around fatherlessness is also robbery.

Of course, Reason has a history of censoring politically incorrect views, which is ironic. No wonder some of your writers voted for Obama.

[Audrey the Liberal]

Let me translate Old Mexican for everyone: Durr Derp I HATE FAGS Durr