I had been thinking about starting a fresh thread about the relevance of morality in deciding whether or not homosexual couples should be able to adopt. When I happened upon the above article, I suppose it seemed natural.
Now, according to the article, banning this sort of adoption is ok because they want to assert their power to show the state's "moral disapproval of homosexuality". It's also mentioned that it was argued that they believe a child needs to be raised by two married parents; This is especialy absurd because Florida is one of many states with a ban on homosexual marriage. Gee I wonder why the heck there aren't a lot of married homosexual couples. . . hmm.
This argument is infuriating and ridiculous. Essentially what they're saying is that they want an excuse to screw over homosexuals, because frankly they hate them, and can't accept the fact that, though the state is supposed to treat all of it's non-criminal citizens equally in matters of law. This tendency of government bodies to turn against it's own constituency is inexcusable if you ask me, these are not criminals, these people aren't doing anything wrong, they pay their taxes and are citizens just the same as anyone else. . . but they have to be legislated against because a few right-wingers get all huffy and uncomfortable whenever they think about them.
It's absurd that laws which embody the spirit of Jim Crow can still be around in the united states to this day, and even more remarkable that these jokers manage to keep their jobs.
At what point was it that the purpose of our legislative bodies switched from being to protect provide for and regulate all it’s citizens, to being a tool for a frightened and ignorant minority to fein being the legitimate will of the people in order to oppress another minority? Was it even part of this nations design and intent to allow the minority to impose unduly on the rights of a minority without reason? This is just utter madness.
Last edited:
