[Paul C. Jesup]

Mr. Robinson, have a question for you. Do you remember a few years ago about the scandal dealing with the Florida Child Services where the State Government of Florida admited that the Florida Child Services had literally lost over 400 children in their system over a couple of years?

The reason I ask this is that from the logic of 'cause and effect', if you lower the percentage of people who can adopt, the effect will be that more children with be raised (for lack of a better word) by the state and several of these children will probably be lost by the state.

I will state I think those who have broken a felony level law should be barred from adopting children.

And I will agree that having homosexuals adopt children is NOT the ideal situation. But it would be a far worse alternative to have state bureaucrats raise children instead.

[Clint N. Suhks]

But it would be a far worse alternative to have state bureaucrats raise children instead.

Oh gee Paul, how odd of you to support homosexual adoption.

That's so out of character for you.

Never mind they offend children at ten times the rate than heterosexuals.

[Antoninus]

But it would be a far worse alternative to have state bureaucrats raise children instead.

I disagree. I'd rather have a kid in a state-run orphanage (or better yet, in a religious orphanage) than in the home of a homosexual. The first is not an ideal situation. The second is child abuse.

[L98Fiero]

"And I will agree that having homosexuals adopt children is NOT the ideal situation."

My sister-in-law used to work for the "Big Brother" program. One of the primary things they had to watch for was homosexuals. It's a pretty liberal organization and that was the first thing they try to determine. They (liberals) know it's not safe for children. In the case of Big Brother, there are mothers who will sue the pants off them if some guy molests their kid. Big Brother acknowledges this as a risk they are not willing to take.

However, if the child is an orphan, who's gonna sue? The danger is no less but gay adoption is allowed.

[GovernmentShrinker]

the effect will be that more children with be raised (for lack of a better word) by the state and several of these children will probably be lost by the state.

Perhaps more troublesome for the big picture, is the effect on the majority who DON'T get lost, since they'll grow up thinking it's normal for children to be raised by the state, and be very grateful to the state for at least feeding and housing them, since nobody else was offering to. Want to take a guess as to how these kids will vote as soon as they get old enough? Do you think they'll EVER vote to cut back government welfare programs?