SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (1199)8/30/2001 4:23:45 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 51775
 
Oh, X, that is really disturbing.
Sometimes I understand the reasoning that is behind decisions even though I believe them wrong, but in this particular case, where the child has been in the man's care since infancy, the reasoning that a gay home is unstable is meaningless. There is no way that even a "stable heterosexual home" can make sense for that decision; no way that the bonding between that man and child can be replaced. I wonder if the child was allowed input. Also, placing a ten year old into another situation is very difficult- older children are very hard to place. Or is it ok that he keeps him as a foster child? That isn't mentioned. Now THAT's silly. You can;t adopt him, but it's ok to raise him if we don;t let you REALLY be his parent?

No couple can assure a court that they are stable and will remain so forever. A psychologist should have been able to ascertain whether the child was stable within that environment, and if so, what possible benefit is there in removing him?

I;m curious; does Fla. allow adoptions by a single person at all? Or just not gays? Because that would give the lie to the judge;s claiming this was not a decision based on morals, an argument that apparently the state used (appalling decision to do so, imo)that this reflects Fla's disapproval of homosexuality.

I would like to know what happens to the boy.