Comments

1
It is outrageous that adoptive parents would be allowed to have guns in their home where the children are present.
That's Florida for you.
2
Glad they have their priorities in order... >:(
3
Florida is a very disturbing place. It's creepy, like Alice in Wonderland creepy.
4
#1, what's outrageous about it? My adoptive parents had a gun, mostly for shooting at dogs that tried to attack our sheep. They always kept it out of reach and taught me that guns were deadly and I wasn't to touch it.

If you're going to ban guns for parents, why not all parents? Are adoptive parents untrustworthy?
5
Florida is full of swamp-dwelling reptiles.

It also has alligators.
6
I wonder how much the gay lobby ( that's actively seeking to assault on all fronts the statutes placed and approved overwhelmingly by the people of Florida ) payed rep randolph to bring this totally unrelated issue to the floor. The twists and turns they're willing to do to bring gay marriage and homosexual adoption into everything never seizes to amaze me. Because according to people like randolph ( and to his pocket ) the imposition of the denial of a mother and father to a little kid must take place now. It's such a pressing issue.
7
I don't see a big deal about gun owners adopting kids, assuming they're not reckless about the guns. It's the same, basically, as people who own pools. Yeah, they can be really dangerous to kids, but with appropriate safety measures and decent parental observation, it's fine.
8
@6: Isn't adoption an issue when kids already don't have a mother and father? And aren't there many kids that are wards of the state that have been bounced around for years?

I guess ultimately a child is fine without parents at all, as long as they aren't gay.

Just because you believe you'd be a terrible father doesn't mean the same of other gay men.
9
@4
Your adoptive parents are bad bad people. No doubt they are homophobic bigots. Good luck overcoming that.
10
Jeez Dan, gun ownership is a private matter.
11
@6 (Loveschild): "I wonder how much the gay lobby ( that's actively seeking to assault on all fronts the statutes placed and approved overwhelmingly by the people of Florida )...." [emphasis added]

Since the Florida adoption statute was not adopted (ahem) via a public state-wide referendum but by the state's legislature, are you saying you now agree that we live in a representative democracy? You know, where the legislature _represents_ the people, but the people do not actually vote on each and every item before the legislature.

So you agree that the legislative votes in NH and VT establishing marriage equality were representative of the people?

In fact, VT's vote required a 2/3 majority of its legislature to override the governor's veto -- that's a pretty "overwhelming" vote, right?

Hey, where did all these crickets come from?
12
@11: Thank you, I'm going to keep this post archived for the next daily LC takedown.
13
@11: Classily done.

People! I don't think that they're trying to ban gun owners from adopting; they just want adoption officials to be allowed to ask if prospective adopters own guns. Which is reasonable. If a couple seems to have their shit together, then a gun may be no big deal, but if they seem to be haphazard in how they run their house, the presence of a gun may be the tipping point between letting them adopt and denying their application due to safety issues.
14
Look, half of the homes in America have at least one gun in them. Florida's ratio is probably higher yet. This is just plain dumb.
15
"Legislators ... were forced to withdraw [their amendments] when a ruling was made that the issue wasn't germane."

Really? That happens? Glorious.

@11: Nice. Loveschild's argument has been destroyed, yet again. I wonder what stupidity Loveschild will cook up to replace it?

@13: You're also clearly right. Banning adoption from gay parents is obviously way less reasonable than banning adoption from gun parents.

That being said, banning adoption from gun parents won't be reasonable in a large number of cases either.
16
@6

I frankly feel disgusted that you even mentioned my state. Please follow your own "standards" and only comment on your own community.

Kthanksbye
17
@11 I've had a very rough day but I can't let this one go by, so I'm gonna set you and the rest straight on this matter.

Given that the ban passed in 1977 following a very public fight for the defense of family values and given the subsequent measures in defense of the nuclear traditional family that were taken after including (ahem) the rejection of gay marriage by the public thru the voting process, it is very accurate to state that the people of Florida have and still overwhelmingly approve the placing of children in households that are reflective of the family that every kid has a right to have, that is to say the balance, nourishing, education and protection that can only be given by a mother and a father.

The only people in Florida who don't support the ban on adoptions by same sex couplings are activist judges like Miami Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy S. Lederman ( and now rep of lobby groups like randolph ) that actively seek to reverse the will of the people.
18
@17: Ooh, that sure set us straight. Teach us more, you wise and foxy Christian prophet. Teach us all about it, all of us.
...ahurm...
"the people of Florida have and still overwhelmingly approve the placing of children in households that are reflective of the family that every kid has a right to have, that is to say the balance, nourishing, education and protection that can only be given by a mother and a father."
O rly? Current Florida adoption law allows single people to adopt. Even married but separated people can adopt children if they can show in court that there's a good reason behind it all. The people of the F-State do not seem to share your poop-in-the-shower-crazy view as to what makes a family; the legislature just seems to not like gay people.
19
@17 Not that judges necessarily do wrong to go against the will of the people, when that will is bigoted. Let's remind you of the repeal of separate but equal.
20
17
You're doing it again! Stop pretending that you know anything of our Floridian culture and mind your own business.

And stop getting names off of wikipedia anytime some topic about "the gay" shows up.
21
@17 "...the balance, nourishing [question: did she mean nurturing or nourishment?], education and protection that can only be given by a mother and a father."

Why do these people always frame this debate in the most oblique terms possible? What "balance" can a mother provide that a father cannot? What gender do you have to be to pay for a child's education? If a man hands a child a biscuit, does the nutritional value automatically decrease? Are women incapable of protecting their children? What if you gave a woman a gun?

When the Church controlled law and society, anonymous prosecutions were considered acceptable and it was legal to construct a case against a person who didn't know the charge levelled at them. It is dishonest to frame a debate in this manner, and I don't know why a person today would attempt to argue in such an underhanded fashion.

22
I'm glad you've had a rough day. May your night be even rougher.

As long as you keep posting things that are merely your own opinion without the benefit of any knowledge of the actual facts as determined by those professionals who actually know something about child development and parenting, that is, the people and professional organizations who actually study this stuff, all of whom disagree with you, your posts are just so much foul-smelling hot air, you're not changing anybody's mind, and nobody cares. what you have to say.
23
Who's the guy rocking back and forth in the background? That's just weird.

Please wait...

and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.