Gay adoption ban takes another hit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leela

Guest
Hi All,

"Don’t look now, but Florida is one big step closer to entering the 21st century.

The battle has been long — and humiliating — but Florida may very well be on the brink of losing a dubious designation as the state with the most backward, stringent anti-gay adoption law in the nation.

When a Miami appeals court this week ruled Florida’s ban on gay adoption is unconstitutional — and thus affirmed the adoption of two foster children by a gay North Miami couple — the issue took a giant step towards heading to the state Supreme Court.

If and when that happens, the issue can be settled once and for all, and hopefully gays and lesbians will be given the right to adopt in Florida, just like they can in 49 other states.

Countless dollars have been wasted on this self-defeating ban, such as the $120,000 the state of Florida paid an anti-gay psychologist to defend the archaic ban in court. This is the same psychologist who then vacationed in Europe with a gay male escort he met through Rentboy.com. Your hard-earned tax dollars at work.

More important than the waste of money in court, however, is the waste of good parenting. And the waste of good homes for children who desperately need them.

Florida allows gays and lesbians to be foster parents, but when they want to adopt, that’s when the ignorance and prejudice and archaic thinking arises. And it simply makes no sense — if you can be good, nurturing foster parents, you can be good, nurturing adoptive parents, no matter your sexual orientation.

Two years ago, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman wrote an opinion on the gay adoption case that was upheld this week.

“… it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent,” Lederman wrote. “The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting.”

Talk about a perfect analysis.

If and when this issue heads for a conclusion, the state Supreme Court should see it exactly the same way. It is way past time for Florida to join the rest of the nation.

BOTTOM LINE: Past time for archaic ban to end."

sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/fl-gay-adoption-editorial-gs-20100925,0,6897345.story

Are Catholics opposed to allowing homosexuals to adopt? Or do they just support the right of Catholic charities to refuse to arrange such adoptions? Should the government fund charities that refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt?

Best,
Leela
 
"Are Catholics opposed to allowing homosexuals to adopt? Or do they just support the right of Catholic charities to refuse to arrange such adoptions? Should the government fund charities that refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt?"

The Church’s adoption agencies close their doors here in the U.S. and in Britian rather than bend to the homosexual agenda.

It took 20 years for the children of sexual abuse to expose their experiences to the Church.

Same sex attracted priests in the Church were either unwilling or unable to control their sexual desires around preteen and teenage males.

google.com/search?q=frank+lombard+homosexual&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
 
THe real test is whether you would want your children to be brought up by adults with a different sexual orientation from yours - if you were unable to do so yourself. If not why should you encourage others to do so? It is not a matter of being prejudiced but realistic…
 
Are Catholics opposed to allowing homosexuals to adopt?
Yes. From here:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top