Posted by: sleepyoldbear on: 28 June 2009
… people around you:
1. argue that abortion should be always and readily and freely available, without acknowledging what in fact happens in an abortion, all in the pursuit of some bogus notion of equality;
2. argue that ‘homosexuality’ (not a particularly useful concept, given the fluidity of that phenomenon, with people moving into and out of it) is ‘normal’, something to be affirmed and celebrated and encouraged, without acknowledging the obviously twisted nature of the phenomenon and the associated neuroses;
3. argue that the world is warming up dramatically and that our burning of fossil fuels is to blame, while failing to acknowledge the downward trend of the world’s temperature, the insurpassable utility of fossil fuels to the advanced industrial economy which brings so many benefits to humanity (and see the article by Jeff Schreiber, to which I have linked in the preceding post);
4. argue that no one culture is superior to another, and that it is a moral imperative to welcome to our Western culture people whose basic commitment in life is the overthrow of that culture;
… to be continued.
Interesting how two studies on the same topic can produce very different results. It’s unfortunate that this article is written with a clear slant against homosexuality, but the study is indeed interesting. I found this paragraph stood out:
“In fact, many believe the percentages of non-heterosexual children in these studies would be even greater if more of the children had been raised from birth by openly homosexual parents. But most weren’t. A majority of these children actually were born into and raised by mother-father couples before one of their parents “came-out” and the parents divorced.”
This certainly takes some wind out of the sails of the argument against allowing same sex couples to adopt. It also gives some support to the belief held by some scientists that genetics plays a significant role in determining one’s sexuality.
Interesting stuff.
I believe that only gives evidence that there are some twisted individuals out there. There are, unfortunately, many cases of straight men molesting their daughters, adopted daughters, or step daughters. Does that mean we should prevent straight men from adopting? Certainly not, but we certainly must ensure that all measures are taken to prevent children from being placed in the care of perverts.
There are straight pedophiles and there are gay pedophiles out there, and sexual orientation does not make either any more or less disgusting.
I would argue against the notion that the outcome is more likely amongst homosexual adoptive parents rather than heterosexual, but it would be interesting to see the results of a few studies if they were available.
I think that the main issue is ensuring that any adoptive parent, whether gay, straight, or whatever, can provide proper care for the child. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many homosexual adults and couples who are very capable of raising a child in a safe and nurturing manner, which, in my opinion, is clearly of greatest importance. The instance of abuse you cited above, along with the other heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles out there, are simply examples of outliers, societal rejects, individuals not worth fertilizer they spread on their lawns.
28 June 2009 at 12:32
Hilarious.
Thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html