McCain backtracks on gay adoption, sort of

posted at 10:19 pm on July 15, 2008 by Allahpundit

First he said he’s personally opposed to letting gays adopt, then he qualified it by adding that the states should decide and that if there aren’t enough straight parents to go around then, yeah, gay parents are better than none at all. Whereupon David Brody sounds the heart-ache alarm for social cons:

I can’t imagine comments like that will play well with the social conservative base at all. I mean if you’re going to say that you’re against gay adoption then why not just stick with that view rather than trying to massage it? The qualifier after the interview does some damage. Why? Because McCain had an opportunity to add the gay adoption issue to his Evangelical checklist and now it’s muddy. As for this being a state issue? Why do so many politicians use the federalist approach to get out of a sticky situation? McCain’s not the first and he won’t be the last.

Social conservatives are saddened by children in foster care or orphanages too. So that’s not the issue. The debate over gay adoption is another matter entirely. The focus here is on John McCain. Evangelicals are already feeling fidgety about McCain and have concerns about him on a number of issues. Why add to the list?

I can understand social cons wanting a national mandate against abortion since it’s a matter of life and death, but when I read something like “Why do so many politicians use the federalist approach to get out of a sticky situation?” in a context like this, I confess, I fear for the safety of the conservative alliance. Anyone here want to make the case that the states aren’t perfectly capable of handling this issue? You don’t have to argue on behalf of gay adoption to argue on behalf of federalism, although if there’s any compelling case for why orphanages are preferable to gay parents, I’m all ears for that, too.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Eh, leaving it up to the states is a good enough position for me. Not everything has to be done at the federal level.

AbaddonsReign on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM

For this social con there isn’t any question about gay adoption or abortion. I am in mourning that the “conservative” candidate is gutless political traitor and the liberal one is even worse.

highhopes on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM

It’s not as if he just pulled federalism in to duck the issue. He takes a federalist position on marriage, as well, though openly takes heat for his opposition to gay marriage.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Single people can adopt. At least in Florida, which pretty much nukes McCain’s point that adoption is meant for a man and a woman, anyways. If single people can, you already have a way for gay people to adopt. Anything that gets kids off the public dole and into the private system works for me.

lorien1973 on July 15, 2008 at 10:26 PM

I remain a federalist, so I disagree with Brody. I also knew many years ago a couple people who’d been raised in orphanages. It wasn’t an inspiring upbringing, and homosexual activity was a given (including in Elizabethtown, KY). So I think neither option brilliant, but both better than the mean streets.

sondiehl on July 15, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Let’s only let the conservative gay couples adopt.

Problem solved.

It's Vintage, Duh on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 PM

What is it with the preoccupation these pundits have with finding what “will play well with the social conservative base”? Yesterday it was Marc Ambinder.

Gabriel Malor on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 PM

What about gay, interracial adoptions? Oh my!

SouthernGent on July 15, 2008 at 10:28 PM

As a state’s decision, makes sense.

But I don’t think many social cons are particularly concerned with federalism, which is understandable.

Spirit of 1776 on July 15, 2008 at 10:29 PM

Some stats and science to stir discussion:

Over a quarter of a million children in the USA are currently being raised by gay couples.

20% of cohabiting gay couples in the USA are raising children, and with less economic resources, on average, than straight couples.

Homosexuality is likely to have a large genetic component that would not be affected by adoption.

Big S on July 15, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Can straight co habitating couples who aren’t married adopt? Um no. Why don’t we just let EVERYBODY adopt? Even the pedophiles? What’s wrong if it is a loving family? Who are we to judge?

It doesn’t matter what McCain’s positions are or aren’t. His entire campaign is ‘I’m not Obama’. He never flip flops from that. Ain’t America’s future bright?

ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Even the pedophiles?

Ahhh, the inevitible gays-are-the-same-as-pedophiles line of attack. What took you so long?

It's Vintage, Duh on July 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM

although if there’s any compelling case for why orphanages are preferable to gay parents, I’m all ears for that, too.

Ummm… Most of the social cons I know would indeed say married parents are preferable to both orphanages and gay parents. That’s the ideal, for children to be raised by the mother and father who gave birth to them.

Of course, I know it isn’t an ideal world. I do want to challenge you to clarify your understanding of who actually ends up in “orphanages” today. Most often, the residents there are children from single parents, products of divorce situations, and extreme behavioral issues. And, I see this as connected to the “no-fault” divorce prevalence of the past several decades, and the mindset that divorce and/or single-parent homes would be just fine for the kids, and children can function just as well without a mother and a father in the home.

30-50 years later, we are reaping the consequences of this “progressive” worldview, which conservatives of that era predicted would happen.

Wonder what we’ll find out in 20-40 years, when the current adoptees of gay households are integrated into our culture?

cs89 on July 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Can straight co habitating couples who aren’t married adopt?

ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

In many states, singles can. I can’t imagine why a single who lives with someone else couldn’t.

Why don’t we just let EVERYBODY adopt? Even the pedophiles? What’s wrong if it is a loving family? Who are we to judge?

You’re seriously going to argue that allowing gay couples to adopt is like allowing pedophiles to adopt?

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM

What does the President of the United States have to do with this issue anyway?

This is clearly a matter for the individual states.

EJDolbow on July 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM

ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Well, I guess that if a pedophile did adopt, we’d at least to hope that he tries to remember the old saying: you don’t crap where you sleep.

I mean, really. It’s not the same thing.

lorien1973 on July 15, 2008 at 10:48 PM

You don’t have to argue on behalf of gay adoption to argue on behalf of federalism, although if there’s any compelling case for why orphanages are preferable to gay parents, I’m all ears for that, too.

I’m not all ears, I’m afraid to hear the answers you’re gonna get. *cringe*

Yes, states should decide. That said, I agree that it gets used as a cop out. I’m fine with gay adoption, especially if the alternative is an orphanage geez, but I do have to admit that politicians use federalism when it’s convenient sometimes.

Dash on July 15, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Why don’t we just let EVERYBODY adopt? Even the pedophiles? What’s wrong if it is a loving family? Who are we to judge?
ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

You’re seriously going to argue that allowing gay couples to adopt is like allowing pedophiles to adopt?

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM

I don’t think he intended to equate the two subjects.

Though I cannot speak for ThackerAgency here, it appears that he is arguing that…

where there is no standard, the floodgates of relativism are opened, once the centuries upon centuries traditional values norm has been jettisoned.

I think…ThackerAgency??

ColtsFan on July 15, 2008 at 10:59 PM

McCain’s got this election won. Let the evangelicals whine.

Yes…leave this up to the states.

ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Oh, brother…

JetBoy on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM

JetBoy on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Indeed.

It's Vintage, Duh on July 15, 2008 at 11:02 PM

My wife and I are in the floral business. We have many gay friends who raise children. It is very upsetting to see their children act like kids. The orphanages would raise ‘em right, then kick em to the curb when they hit 18.

Limerick on July 15, 2008 at 11:02 PM

where there is no standard, the floodgates of relativism are opened, once the centuries upon centuries traditional values norm has been jettisoned.

ColtsFan on July 15, 2008 at 10:59 PM

It’s absurd to say that allowing non-criminal couples of different sexual orientations to adopt is the first step in allowing pedophiles to adopt. Just like gay marriage doesn’t open the door to marrying dogs: The standard simply becomes two adults of legal age marrying.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Can straight co habitating couples who aren’t married adopt? Um no.

As Amerpundit writes, adoption by unmarried individuals is allowed in 49 states and the District. It is permissible to consider their living situation before approval.

Gabriel Malor on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Why don’t we just let EVERYBODY adopt? Even the pedophiles? What’s wrong if it is a loving family? Who are we to judge?

And straight people NEVER molest children, right?

ThePrez on July 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM

I can’t imagine comments like that will play well with the social conservative base at all. I mean if you’re going to say that you’re against gay adoption then why not just stick with that view rather than trying to massage it?

Because that’s an insane position for any reasonable person living in the 21st century?

freevillage on July 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Anyone here want to make the case that the states aren’t perfectly capable of handling this issue?

Well, since gay marriage is now legal in CA (due to our state not listening to the will of its inhabitants,) then it’s logical to think that gay adoption is now a newly-opened loophole. And if the state considered trying to close that loophole, then we might have another possibly-Supreme Court case on our hands. This would also raise issues in Massachusetts and NY, where gay marriages are, if I’m not mistaken, recognized.

MB007 on July 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Eh, leaving it up to the states is a good enough position for me. Not everything has to be done at the federal level.
AbaddonsReign on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Good comment, off to an excellent start.

For this social con there isn’t any question about gay adoption or abortion. I am in mourning that the “conservative” candidate is gutless political traitor and the liberal one is even worse.
highhopes on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM

… oh for the love of God …

wise_man on July 15, 2008 at 11:13 PM

It’s absurd to say that allowing non-criminal couples of different sexual orientations to adopt is the first step in allowing pedophiles to adopt. Just like gay marriage doesn’t open the door to marrying dogs: The standard simply becomes two adults of legal age marrying.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Okay.

Again, I can’t speak for ThackerAgency.

Maybe his usage of that comparison is due to the belief among many that the triumph of gay rights occurred due to a very vocal minority of individuals, who have no problem redefining a centuries upon centuries prior standard.

Pedophiles have their vocal minority as well…

ThackerAgency, any additional comments, sir??

ColtsFan on July 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM

First he said he’s personally opposed to letting gays adopt, then he qualified it by adding that the states should decide and that if there aren’t enough straight parents to go around then, yeah, gay parents are better than none at all.

I personally totally agree with this.

Dawnsblood on July 15, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Ummm with the bolded part anyway.

Dawnsblood on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Maybe his usage of that comparison is due to the belief among many that the triumph of gay rights occurred due to a very vocal minority of individuals, who have no problem redefining a centuries upon centuries prior standard.

Formulate that standard that has existed centuries upon centirues.

freevillage on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Well, since gay marriage is now legal in CA (due to our state not listening to the will of its inhabitants,) then it’s logical to think that gay adoption is now a newly-opened loophole.

As I said gay adoption is already legal by unmarried individuals in 49 states. More than that, adoption by gay couples is legal at least in 11 states. I say “at least” because 25 additional states laws contain no explicit prohibition on gay couples adopting.

Learn your facts first, MB007.

Gabriel Malor on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM

I have to admit I’m seriously conflicted on this issue.

I have a sister who was married and had two boys. She divorced, had a few boyfriends, and then decided she was gay. I might add that her boys were around 7 and 9 when she determined she was gay.

Both parents shared custody (and lived within 20 miles of each other). Today, both boys are well adjusted normal teenagers. Mind, she has had several girlfriends over the years – some of which moved in with her (to no ill effect I can determine).

I was a former foster parent (with my now ex wife) and know, from personal experience, the trials and tribulations of the foster care system. The question asked seems to be are children better off in an “Orphanage” or with people who will care for and love them. I think the latter (based upon my experience(s) with my sister and her girlfriends).

The “Gay People” I have known over the years do have their own kind of “Sub-Culture” but they have always been, at the same time, cogniscent of the larger culture around them. For example, I’ve been to many “Gay Bars” with my sister. Most of these places charge a cover charge to keep out the riff raff. But, interestingly, when they find out I’m a sibiling of someone gay, they usually (most of the time) refund the cover charge! Further, THEY usually get mad about the nuts who parade around in drag or nothing at all!

While I remain conflicted on this issue (based upon experience) I think the founders were correct to leave decisions of this nature up to the States (not to mention the citizens within them). In the end, people will move to the States most favoring their lifestyles and needs. One size doesn’t fit all!

FloridaBill on July 15, 2008 at 11:21 PM

As I said gay adoption is already legal by unmarried individuals in 49 states. More than that, adoption by gay couples is legal at least in 11 states. I say “at least” because 25 additional states laws contain no explicit prohibition on gay couples adopting.

Learn your facts first, MB007.

Gabriel Malor on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM

If I’m not mistaken, this is what amerpundit said:

In many states, singles can. I can’t imagine why a single who lives with someone else couldn’t.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM

And then you said:

As Amerpundit writes, adoption by unmarried individuals is allowed in 49 states and the District. It is permissible to consider their living situation before approval.

Gabriel Malor on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Somehow, the “49 states” argument just appears out of nowhere…not from amerpundit, but from you.

Learn to cite your facts first, Gabriel Malor.

And, for the record, I was writing my comment before yours was shown.

MB007 on July 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM

MB007 on July 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM

I said that adoption by singles was allowed in many states (I didn’t know the exact figure). Gabe (who’s an attorney) backed me up by saying that adoption by singles is allowed in 49 states. Were we not both talking about the same thing? Or am I missing something here?

amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 12:01 AM

ThackerAgency, any additional comments, sir??

ColtsFan on July 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM

My comment basically stems from the idea or question of whether or not there should be rules for adoption. If there should be, then there needs to be some standard. If there is some standard, then SOME subset of the community will be ‘offended’ as they will not be allowed to adopt.

You have to have a certain income to adopt? That’s discrimination against the poor who want love too.

You have to have a house to adopt? Again, discrimination based on financial ability.

You can’t have a criminal background to adopt? If they serve time, why should they continue to be punished.

The pedophile is hyperbole. . . but it still remains to be seen. . . do we need rules to determine who can and can not adopt? If we do, then who makes them? If there are rules, someone is going to be offended.

ThackerAgency on July 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM

amerpundit on July 16, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Well I believe that Mr. Malor was talking about gay adoption being legal in 49 states, after you said you thought that single adoptions were allowed in many states. The situation that I was alluding was that a lawsuit might be involved if there was a perceived double standard between straight and gay adoptions.

MB007 on July 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM

ThackerAgency, any additional comments, sir??
ColtsFan on July 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM

My comment basically stems from the idea or question of whether or not there should be rules for adoption. If there should be, then there needs to be some standard. If there is some standard, then SOME subset of the community will be ‘offended’ as they will not be allowed to adopt.
ThackerAgency on July 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Thank you.

ColtsFan on July 16, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Let’s only let the conservative gay couples adopt.

Problem solved.

It’s Vintage, Duh on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Haaaaaaaa!!!!!

Yannow…I might actually consider voting for McCain if he had the balls to say that…..LOL

The Ugly American on July 16, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Well I believe that Mr. Malor was talking about gay adoption being legal in 49 states, after you said you thought that single adoptions were allowed in many states.

I may have not been clear about that. Adoption by individuals is legal in 49 states, and that includes adoption by straight individuals or adoption by gay individuals. The only state which has law that explicitly prohibits gay individuals from adopting is Florida. There is at least one additional state which allows gay individuals to adopt, but explicitly prohibit gay couples from adopting (Mississippi). But I’m probably missing a few.

Gabriel Malor on July 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM

Gabriel Malor on July 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM

Many thanks for your clarification.

MB007 on July 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Stability is the key to raising an emotionally and mentally healthy child; unmarried and homosexual partners simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couples can give. Children need a role model, both male and female. These are nothing but homosexual activists putting their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother.

A mountain of social science, the world’s major religions, common sense and observation tell us that children have the best chance to thrive in married, mother-and-father-based families. Why not give kids the best possible chance at a normal, healthy family life instead of using them to make a cultural statement?

And besides all that–I just don’t like the idea of gay parents bringing up their kids to be gay.

CultureWar on July 16, 2008 at 1:29 AM

The evangelicals have destroyed the Republican party. Who gives a crap, people. If they’re qualified and good people…let them adopt. Pretty simple. It’s 2008, let’s get with the times.

therightwinger on July 16, 2008 at 1:33 AM

The evangelicals have destroyed the Republican party. Who gives a crap, people. If they’re qualified and good people…let them adopt. Pretty simple. It’s 2008, let’s get with the times.

therightwinger on July 16, 2008 at 1:33 AM

where to start?

You may remember that the evangelicals had quite a bit to do with the rise of the modern GOP, as in the 70′s the party was pretty much on the ropes (minorities in House, Senate, Carter in the WH in ’76). While there are a variety of reasons why there has been an R in the WH for 20 of the past 28 years, the evangelical vote was at least a contributing factor. The evangelical vote also contributed to GOP gains in Congress. We will probably disagree as to why they lost the majority, but my opinion is that they moved away from the conservatism of the majority, and allowed corruption and a lack of fiscal discipline to undermine a message that appealed to a majority of voters that included a significant number of evangelical Republicans.

As to who “gives a crap” about adoption policy, there is no more central issue to the future of civilization than how one’s children are raised. According to the natural order of things, it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child. In my mind, that’s a hint that maybe they should both be involved in raising it.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM

I believe Utah only allows married couples to adopt. Feel free to correct me on that.

Damian G. on July 16, 2008 at 2:42 AM

We should be clear on one point – the only reason we have a crisis of homeless children in this country is because the feds pay a bounty to the states to take children from parents and adopt them out.

Make no mistake about this – if the states had to foot the entire costs of removing children from parents, the number of removed children would be half or a third what it is now.

This is big business – selling other people’s children.

platypus on July 16, 2008 at 4:20 AM

Well, since gay marriage is now legal in CA (due to our state not listening to the will of its inhabitants,) then it’s logical to think that gay adoption is now a newly-opened loophole.

MB007 on July 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM

“Newly Opened”? Have you ever been to California? Or watched TV?

Who didn’t already know that gay people adopt all the time in California?

Lehosh on July 16, 2008 at 5:18 AM

I think states are capable of deciding if gays are qualified to rear a child…..oops, maybe using the word “rear” in that context isn’t a good choice of words.

David in ATL on July 16, 2008 at 6:10 AM

If The Powers That Be would just make it easier and less expensive to adopt, we’d have plenty of adoptive parents available. The system is drowning in red tape – just like everything else the government gets in its sticky fingers.
That said, a kid needs a mom and a dad – not a dad and a dad, a mom and a mom, just a mom, or just a dad. It truly makes a world of difference. Sure, a kid can grow up just fine with any other combination, but it’s not the optimum situation. A kid can grow up just fine eating chips and reading comic books, but there are better ways of living than that. The kid can’t decide who is going to adopt him or her. Shouldn’t we try to give every child the best childhood? Of course, who decides what is the best childhood? Therein lies the rub.

Mrs. Happy Housewife on July 16, 2008 at 7:41 AM

Even the pedophiles?

ThackerAgency on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Whatever agenda it is you represent, ThackerAgency, you’ve thoroughly discredited it. Nice work.

If gays or singles want to give a loving, safe home to an otherwise unwanted child I’m all for it. Good for them.

Gilda on July 16, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Nope, if the government and the rest of you social engineers think it’s ok for mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy to raise a child who are we who think that a mommy and a daddy are a better idea? The government always does a swell job with everything else that they try to remedy, why not let them engineer the family structure now? It’s worked great in the inner city with African Americans around the welfare state! Good grief!

sabbott on July 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM

The government always does a swell job with everything else that they try to remedy, why not let them engineer the family structure now?

sabbott on July 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM

You seem to have gotten this backwards. The “orphanages” and foster care system are the government. Prospective adopters are private individuals.

I trust individual Americans of whatever demographic much more than I trust government bureaucracies. Why don’t you?

Gilda on July 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM

It’s not as if he just pulled federalism in to duck the issue. He takes a federalist position on marriage, as well, though openly takes heat for his opposition to gay marriage.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Actually, he did pull in federalism to duck the issue. He did the same thing on drilling. He’s more than happy to keep ANWR shut through federal mandate but he punts to the states on drilling in California and Florida, probably knowing someone like Schwarzenegger or a federal judge will keep anything from happening. It was a way for him to get on the right side of the issue that didn’t cost him anything; oh yes, I’m in favor of ‘x’ policy; let someone else decide. I’m convinced he does that on issues he doesn’t care about. He’s been consistent on Iraq; he’ll give the entire country the finger all day on immigration but on drilling, gay adoption he punts. Why not a federalist position on immigration? Um…because they might not do things the way La Raza wants like McCain will? But securing borders is a federal function; um yeah, and they’ve done SUCH a great job with it. He’s no federalist. He’s a hack juggling various constituencies. You guys stuck us with this loser; don’t try to make him something he isn’t. He’s no statesman.

JetBoy on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Yes, Jetboy, he probably does. But only because the democrats couldn’t field a worse candidate unless they created one in a lab. Or just ran an inanimate object. ‘McCain vs. Old Dump Truck’. Probably still would have been a close race. Let’s hope you have something to gloat about in 4 years…because I have a bad feeling McCain is going to do a number on the economy that will make us look back to $4.00 a gallon gas with nostalgia.

austinnelly on July 16, 2008 at 9:38 AM

I once heard an argument on this issue that basically stated that two homosexuals are better than one single parent.

Despite my opinion on gay marriage, I agree with that. If two gay people have proven to be in a stable relationship and passed all the background checks adoption agencies require, then I do think they should be given preference over single parents.

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM

In many states, singles can. I can’t imagine why a single who lives with someone else couldn’t.

amerpundit on July 15, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Maybe the issue then becomes whether they both can adopt the child or whether only one person will be able to. Basically, with one person the mother and the other just the boyfriend.

It would make sense if there was reason to doubt the stability of the relationship. It wouldn’t make sense to put the orphan through a custody proceeding unnecessarily.

McCain’s got this election won.

JetBoy on July 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM

I don’t know. He’s only a man, struggling to gain the trust of his own party. Obama’s a god who convinces fainting swarms of women and Chris Matthews that he can heal the world.

One size doesn’t fit all!

FloridaBill on July 15, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Exactly. And that seems to be the point of having separate, united states. It’s not perfect, but I love it.

sabbott on July 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM

The problem is that single moms and dads have already been given the opportunity to adopt. How is that any better than letting two moms or two dads adopt?

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM

If two gay people have proven to be in a stable relationship and passed all the background checks adoption agencies require, then I do think they should be given preference over single parents.

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 10:13 AM

There are no “gay people” – there are only people who repeatedly perform homosexual acts. They can change at any time, and many do.

How would they prove they are in a stable relationship? Joint ownership of property? Joint bank accounts? What?

Putting aside that point, the problem with homosexual couplings being recognized as equivalent to marriage is that marriage is a cultural construct based on natural biological functions. It furthers and develops what is present naturally and is part of our human design.

Homosexual couplings, even if repeated every day for years, do not build on any natural design or survival instinct. Objectively, such behavior cannot produce what marriage produces – replication of another being in its own image.

The only rational reason for “gays” to adopt is to obtain children that they cannot obtain from their relationship.

Other people’s children, who have been deprived of their natural parents.

This “debate” could not happen if there wasn’t a big source of funding creating the “problem” to be solved. Homosexuals are not even close to being optimal parents because their behavior and values are antithetical to the natural order of human generational immortality design.

platypus on July 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM

There are no “gay people” – there are only people who repeatedly perform homosexual acts.

OK then, problem solved. There are no “gay people” and as such no “gays” exist to prevent from allowing adoption.

That’s a little more liberal than I was going to go with it, but whatever.

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Other people’s children, who have been deprived of their natural parents.

Generally by God.

Are you proposing giving them back?

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Ha. I love it.

It's Vintage, Duh on July 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Other people’s children, who have been deprived of their natural parents.
Generally by God.

Are you proposing giving them back?

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Do you actually believe that most kids in “orphanages” today are true orphans, with natural parents who are deceased?

Please do a little research before stating such a fallacy. Most kids in institutions today, or who are in foster care, have living natural parents. They’re “generally” available for adoption because of removal from their home due to abuse, neglect, lack of stability, etc.

While true orphans (had 2 natural parents, who died together or subsequently to one another leaving the child “orphaned) do exist, they are a small percentage of the number available for adoption.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I keep forgetting how seriously some of you treat these comment sections as though it’s a nationally televised debate, requiring expert knowledge on all subjects before posting something.

I have no idea what the stats are for orphanages, but I do know that many kids who are taken from their able-bodied parents aren’t eligible for adoption and are only there temporarily.

By the time a kid with actual, living parents can be given to someone else to raise, the parents are generally so incapacitated in one form or another, either due to drug use, jail time or some other failing of their own, that they may as well be dead.

So sorry I took the cheap shot that was less accurate. I can see how it makes such a big difference in an argument about homosexual adoptions.

So my question still stands. Are you or platypus interested in giving the children back?

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM

If the parents are able to be good parents, the kids do need to be with them. Although there are admitted problems with the foster-care/adoption system, there’s a natural bond that is the reason that “family reunification” is a primary goal today.

A kid’s need for their own mom & dad, or if necessary the closest approximation, is kind of related to the issue of gay adoption in my opinion.

cs89 on July 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM

If the parents are able to be good parents, the kids do need to be with them.

If that’s the case, the kids shouldn’t be available for adoption anyway, so I really don’t see how this relates.

Esthier on July 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM