The names of the lawyers were intentionally deleted to prevent them from recieving any free publicity. These so called promotors of children's best interests fully ignore the science behind the dangers of a young mind raised by sexual deviants.
The Florida Bar News DOES accepte commentary letters which are reasoned and inteligently written.
FEEL FREE TO WRITE TO THE FLORIDA BAR NEWS with scientific (they ignore all religious comentary so don't bother) comentary. These lawyers ignore the 11th Circuit's well reasoned opinion upholding the ban on homosexuals adopting children.
To write your well reasoned opinion educating the limited mindes of the legal profession send it to the following:
firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Just cc email to all.
They seriously need to know the science involved and they need to keep the Florida Bar focused on regulation and not the politics of sexual recreation.
These letters are a text book example of the pro-homosexual spin that dominates the Family Law section of the Florida Bar. (at the expense of society and in particular at the expense of the childhood of children)
What does the American College of Pediatricians say? Their conclusion is this: The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
My own conclusion is based on my nearly 50 years of observation. Homosexuals are sick people who are unfortunately being led around by the nipples by militant homosexuals, who are placing their own sick desires above the well being of children, and above the very health of our society.
And all of us normal people get to pay a huge faggot tax to subsidize the insane sexual practices of these idiots who have single handedly spawned the aids epidemic.
Some head starts for researchers....
In regards to Adoption:
In regards to Child Abuse:
"I am personally acquainted with a gay couple who adopted two children. These children are happy and thriving, and are fortunate to be loved by caring parents."
Anecdotal evidence alert!
"In my youth I was taught to hate and fear homosexuality. I think in my adulthood I have learned some more of the truth and complexity of sexuality and, unfortunately, the truth about many other relationships."
Personal feeeeeelllings alert!
"...gay people who adopt children are in a better position than any to explain to their children the role that sexual orientation has in society having themselves voluntarily overcome significant obstacles..."
Sexual deviance should have no "role" in society.
Everytime the homosexual "parents" kiss each other and carry on 'romantically' in front of the child, that child is sexually abused. And every time somebody tells that child that homosexual perversion is "normal", that child is psychologically and spiritually abused.
It breaks my heart when I think of an innocent little child being subjected to homosexual deviancy on a daily basis. It's even more heart breaking to see that so many Americans have bought the big lie that men having sex with other men, and women having sex with other women is normal. We've even glorified this disgusting behavior by giving these perverts special rights. Maybe the economy is booming, but our country is suffering from a hellacious moral decadence.
For the list and great links on thread.
A recent letter to the editor implied children would be more likely to be sexually abused or confused in a homosexual family, and at the highest risk of emotional peril, than in a heterosexual one. My own experience and studies tend to discredit these generalized opinions.
Blah, Blah, Blah... -- generalized opinion = conventional wisdom = common law = enacted law
If the legislature wishes to set limits on who can adopt, then make the limits fact- and science- based, not based on emotion and the leftover bigotry of our childhoods. If the proposed adoptive parents have characteristics that thorough scientific study has shown to be detrimental to the children, then so limit them. No one has produced any credible studies supporting the outright legislative ban on homosexual adoption.
Blah, Blah, Blah... -- The law exists now -no proof necessary to maintain it...
Such are the moral relative, anecdotal, and delusional arguments coming from the left...
Point -there are no legitimate scientific studies possible in regards to "homosexuality" as an innate condition as there is no measurement possible -no way to identify a "homosexual". All that is available is subjective behavioral psychology -the study of behavior.
I have yet to see a study that suggests engaging in homosexual activity is beneficial to society OR that exposing children to those engaging in homosexual activity is nothing less than psychological abuse of innocent children.
If the homosexual activists wish to kick conventional wisdom to the curb THEN the burden lies squarely upon their shoulders to scientifically prove anything and plead the case for homosexual activity.
The reality of conventional wisdom is a proved commodity that is in place right now -homosexuality is a disorder that breeds disorder. If the homosexual activists can argue the "we were born this way; accept our chosen activity" position -- THEN society can claim the same.
Society was born this way -society is this way -society rewards health, order, and procreation; society discriminates against disease and penalizes disorder. Society rightly considers homosexual activity as unhealthy and disordered and will continue to do so.
Homosexual activists would do better to either choose not to engage in activities that society will always condemn or accept the reality that the activities they choose to engage in will always be condemned by society.
Attempting to fabricate facts and sell delusion will never work...
Here is a link to a document that addresses the "studies" & "research":
A 129 page Adobe Acrobat document:
It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes no difference whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have demonstrated this.
An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion. The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.
Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.
The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).
Each chapter of the evaluation describes and evaluates how the studies utilized one of these research steps. Along the way, Lerner and Nagai offer pointers for how future studies can be more competently done. Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:
- Unclear hypotheses and research designs
- Missing or inadequate comparison groups
- Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
- Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
- Samples too small to yield meaningful results
- Missing or inadequate statistical analysis
Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all fortynine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy.
Four Appendices follow. Appendix 1 is a bibliography of the studies and related publications. Appendix 2 is a table that summarizes the evaluation of each of the studies with regard to each research step. Appendix 3 (by William C. Duncan) is an overview of how these studies have been used in the law. Appendix 4 (by Kristina Mirus) describes how the media has covered these studies.