I like the reasoned and logical arguments in your post. This is from a 2018 article I read (and saved) about a magistrate that was fired in the UK for deigning to voice his opinion in favor of the nuclear family.
(Source: World News Daily by Bob Unruh)
“The old model of the adoption industry was that its customers were the children in need of adoptive parents. These customers, the children, were entitled to the best service available,” he said. “The new model of the adoption industry has somehow become that the children are now the commodity supplied, and that the prospective adopters are the customers. This has given adoptive parents consumer rights, at least in theory, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of protected characteristics.
“The demotion of children, from customers to commodity, and the exaltation of the adopters, from commodity to customers, is itself a great evil.”
I agree 💯.
Sadly in my deep blue state, gay adoptive couples are given priority over heterosexual couples.
No, it's not weird. It's sensible and serious. It upsets you emotionally, so you've chosen to do a reversal and use the "weird" card because it makes you mad.
This entire article could also be written about introducing a child to Christianity at a young age. I say this as a Christian. The idea that this specific group of people can specifically indoctrinate children in a way that is more harmful than other ideologies is laughable.
Depending on how the ideology is manifested, I don't disagree. The difference is that merely by virtue of even entertaining this idea of a "gay family," certain very visible and very significant ideological signals are being sent. If every so-called Christian that would indoctrinate children in a way that is harmful and abusive were to be branded with a highly visible red letter A on their face, then you'd probably advocate for keeping kids out of the care of people wearing that big red letter A, no?
God commands us to raise our children in the one true Faith. Truth can only come from God, which means any ideology outside of Christianity is false and therefore harmful.
There is only one true path and it is narrow. All other paths lead to hell. The notion that anybody else's ideologies are just as valid as God's Word is an acceptable belief for a unitarian, but not for a Christian.
Leviticus 20:13 makes God's views on homosexuals abundantly clear. They are guilty in their sin and any notion that they can " prove themselves innocent" in order to be allowed unfettered access to children is laughable.
"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17
I'm not telling you how to live your life. The Word of God instructs Christians on how to live their lives. If you have a problem with clear instructions in scripture, your problem is not with me but with the Father.
God did not put pen to paper and write the Bible. People did. There are parts of the Bible I could tell you to follow and you would reject them outright. The idea that this book is infallible and everything in it is the word of God and none of it can be questioned is insane. It contradicts itself often and thoroughly. Using your own experience and knowledge to parse it and use it as a guide on how to live your life is the proper way to approach it.
If you want to stone your wife when they disrespect you, go ahead. I couldn’t care less that the Bible tells me to do this.
Again, feel free to quote any scripture you find appropriate.
It would be a bit disingenuous for you to do so, as you clearly do not believe it to be true. The Bible is not a choose your own adventure book that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and disbelieve.
As far as capital punishment for infidelity, I would be in favor of that being codified into civil law. People would take entering into and maintaining their marriages more seriously if that was the case. The sentence would still have to be carried out by the community (our civil justice system) just as it was in Deuteronomy.
Well, again: One group is the proven control group that has been the norm for literally thousands of years. You will have a very hard time finding anyone out there who resents being raised in a stable two-parent household where mother and father are both present in a functional marriage. The other group, those who wish to become "gay parents," are the ones who want to run an experiment that has never been done before. And if you go looking for people who resent being raised in circumstances radically different from the norm, you will find a lot of them!
So in light of that, yes, the burden of proof is on the people who want to make a major deviation from the proven formula. Again: The well-being of innocent children is at stake, so there is a moral duty to meet this burden of proof.
Can you give an example of a widespread ideology or belief children were born into that you think also needed to prove their ability to raise children, outside of homosexuality? And what specifically did that group do or not do to prove such ability?
I'd have the same criticism of basically any alternative family norms that deviate too far from the ideal without apparent justification. Here's one that I think is highly questionable at best, i.e. these people probably shouldn't be doing this to their kids:
The thing that is special about Le Gays is that they have hijacked the power of the state and wielded it to impose their ideology top-down. I think the practices of the FLDS are immoral too, but the state-run public schools aren't trying to teach my kids that what the FLDS does is okay.
I think being a “van life” family is far more of a choice than being homosexual. I will ask again: Can you provide an example of another ideology, religion, ect. (rather than a lifestyle that aligns more with a hobby like living in a van) that you believe is obligated to demonstrate they have/had the ability to raise children, and how did that ideology do or not do so, in your eyes?
You are conflating morality with validity. It is valid for a homosexual couple to raise children, regardless of your moral hand wringing. Public schools are teaching that it is valid, you are the one saying they are teaching that it is moral.
Equality is not sameness. What you do is refuse to acknowledge differences and insist that men and women are interchangeable in parent child relationships. They are not.
I recognize your game, and I'm not going to comply with what you're trying to do. You're trying to have a "win" by going "found the homophobe!" Childish. No compliance with your nonsense.
Any family arrangement that doesn't have a stable mother and father is second best.
Let's say that a child being brought up in a stable two-parent household is preferable. Let's really grasp the nettle and concede that it is better if these two parents are opposite genders (or opposite sexes, whatever, let's not muddy the waters).
That's not the relevant question for whether two men or two women should be allowed to parent a child, though. It's not like stopping gay people having kids is going to cause straight couples to have correspondingly more. So the relevant question is whether a child growing up in such an environment is better than no child at all.
And if women in desperate poverty in rural sub-Sarahan Africa are having kids (and not only that, but having more of them than anyone else in the world), then clearly the bar for "is this life worth living?" is actually surprisingly low. There's no way that a child in a stable middle-class western household has it worse off than one born in Mozambique, just because the baby's parents don't between them have a pole and a hole.
Conservatives really will moan about collapsing birth rates until the cows come home, but also scream blue murder about any attempts to widen the notion of parenthood from their highly specific vision of what it should look like.
>That's not the relevant question for whether two men or two women should be allowed to parent a child, though. It's not like stopping gay people having kids is going to cause straight couples to have correspondingly more. So the relevant question is whether a child growing up in such an environment is better than no child at all.<
This demonstrates a basic failure to understand the fact that gay people cannot "have kids" in the same way as normal people. If a woman is to bear a child, it is in the best interests of that child that she raise them as their mother, because that is what she is. It is not in the best interests of the child to give them away at birth to a pair of homosexuals.
If enforcing this norm means that the woman will simply choose not to bear a child, then so be it. Again, there are very trivial thought experiments that one can conduct to demonstrate that this is the correct way of things. Suppose that someone says to you that they want to bear a child for the purpose of producing child pornography, and you tell them you won't allow them to do that, to which they respond with "fine, I won't have any children at all then." Should you walk back your stance on the grounds that it is better for the child to exist and have evil done to them than to not exist at all? Of course not.
If people wish not to reproduce, then that is their choice, but once reproduction has occurred, their choices now must take a backseat to the child's well-being. To do otherwise is evil and anyone can recognize this quite clearly when liberal political values aren't at stake.
Right, again the "a woman should not have her child taken away from her at birth" objection - which is a valid objection - applies only to gay *men.* But since I've already confirmed that you don't like lesbians having babies either - despite lesbians being more monogamous than straight people, they are trad and based - I conclude that it's not really concern for the loss of the mother-child bond that really motivates you.
I already replied to this talking point in another comment. It's also bad for a child to be raised without their father, to be lied to that they have "two moms," etc. Did you not see that reply?
No. I won't talk about this with you. Why? Because your purpose is to make sure not to engage my point of view. Splitting the difference? That's not what you're doing. You're already reducing it to a caricature, and you will continue to do so if I engage you. So I will not.
No reciprocity, then no conversation. Find someone else.
Just because something has been done for thousands of years does not make it morally correct, despite your interpretation of it as such. Just because something has been done for dozens of years does not make it morally incorrect, despite your interpretation as such. Nobody is obligated to prove anything whatsoever to you, just as you are free to believe what you want.
>Nobody is obligated to prove anything whatsoever to you, just as you are free to believe what you want.<
Again, *when the well-being of children is at stake*, no, you are not free to indulge the liberationist "do whatever you want" routine. If somebody says they believe that it's fine for their twelve year old to be drinking six packs of beer, I'm gonna call that out too.
This idea of egalitarianism is a ridiculous concept. If your main waste line breaks and sewage is flooding into your crawl space you are going to place more value on a plumber than a daycare worker. If you have to go to work and need childcare the daycare worker may be important, but if you have to choose between the two, the plumber will win every time.
It is simply an objective fact that some people, either through superior genetics or superior discipline, are more important than other people.
You're lying and trying everything you can to characterize yourself, or gays, as victims.
You're deliberately failing to acknowledge the interests of the child. Your outlook is narcissistic. You only care about what "privileges" and "rights" adults get. You do not care one whit what this does to children. Oh sure, you'll mewl and try to say you do, but you don't.
I don’t believe that I said I was, although that’s a judgment I will leave to others. You didn’t respond to my statement—your comment is a non sequitur.
"If a woman is to bear a child, it us in the best interests of that child that she raise them as her mother because that's what she is. It is not in the best interests of the child to give them away at birth to a pair of homosexuals."
Right, yes, this objection applies to gay *men.* But I've already confirmed separately that you don't want lesbians having kids either (even though the divorce rate for lesbians is way lower than the divorce rate for straight couples, they're like the most monogamous people out there, they are trad and based). So the evidence is pointing towards your true objection being something else.
Children raised without fathers do quite poorly. It's possible that the median lesbian couple is a better environment than a gay male couple, but both are almost certainly wore than the median heterosexual married couple.
"I have not seen anyone who is supportive of “gay families” recognize this distinction, and I think there is a high chance that I never will, because it presents too great a threat to their priors."
Neither have I seen anyone who supports gay parentage recognize this distinction. At least not explicitly. Although I would consider the argument that I do often hear--that gay couples can raise a child just as well as straight couples--to implicitly recognize that distinction. They just believe the "evidence" already exists to support it.
The argument is always the same, however: "Wouldn't you rather be raised the gay architects with the BMW and the white picket fence than the drugged out mom whose string of drug dealer boyfriends beat you up every day?" It assumes that if there is one straight person who is a worse parent than one gay person in the world would be, then this is evidence that gay parentage is right. But all it is is evidence of what you said in the article: the prevailing moral code today is that I should be able to do anything I want as long as everyone consents (or nobody is harmed).
>The argument is always the same, however: "Wouldn't you rather be raised the gay architects with the BMW and the white picket fence than the drugged out mom whose string of drug dealer boyfriends beat you up every day?" It assumes that if there is one straight person who is a worse parent than one gay person in the world would be, then this is evidence that gay parentage is right.<
This is another argument that is so bad and lazy I can't give it credit as a serious defense of gay surrogacy. Obviously the proper comparison to make is to ask whether a child is better off being raised by a married man and woman or by two men who like to have anal sex with each other, *all else being held equal.* You need to demonstrate that the latter is *at least* not any worse than the former. On its own, this comparison fails a basic moral sniff test for normal people who aren't already emotionally invested in liberal political views--if I have a child in my care and I have to decide whether to place them with a married couple or a gay couple, and that is the *only* thing I know about the couples, I don't have any other information--obviously I'm picking the married couple, every time, easy peasy lemon squeezy.
>But all it is is evidence of what you said in the article: the prevailing moral code today is that I should be able to do anything I want as long as everyone consents (or nobody is harmed).<
Yes, but not with regards to children. Even today we still recognize that there is a positive duty to provide for a child's well-being, not to simply leave them to their own devices and let them do as they will. This is why we require by law that children must receive a proper education, we don't just say "well as long as the child consents to not going to school, they don't really have to." We also generally recognize that it's better for children to be raised by their mother and father in a stable household, except when that obvious truth threatens to come into conflict with liberal norms surrounding gay people, at which point we (and by "we" I mean liberals) temporarily forget about it.
Agreed. I took you to mean in your article that this principle about children is obvious, but that liberals/progressives have abandoned it. I suppose they have only abandoned it on those issues that are especially important to current year leftism.
You seem not to grok that there is a fundamental problem with your argument: a couple adopting a child from an orphanage, or a woman marrying a widower with young children, according to your logic, are not parents.
In fact, as near as I can figure, a husband who raises the child of his unfaithful wife - even if the infidelity is unknown to him - cannot be the child’s parent.
“Putting aside the issue of consent”…
If you disagree with my assertions above, then please explain why these are not identical to your core claims against the very idea of gay parents.
>In fact, as near as I can figure, a husband who raises the child of his unfaithful wife - even if the infidelity is unknown to him - cannot be the child’s parent.<
That's completely correct. Do you think the average man would be happy to raise another man's kid after his wife cucked him? No! Obviously he would prefer that the kid actually be his. He might raise the kid because it's the best option for the child, but that's the thing, it is the best choice among a selection of undesirable options after something has gone off the rails. It's not something that you plan for from the start as the entire premise of having the kid in the first place--no one sets out to raise their wife's cuck child on purpose, and if they did we'd rightly think that's really messed up!
Conveniently ignoring the other cases I asked about: widower remarrying, couple adopting a child from an orphanage, whether the husband unaware of the infidelity are parents…
I thought it was obvious that the same thing applies to any of that. These are unfortunate circumstances that people have to confront after things have gone awry in life, they aren't situations that are deliberately planned out and then intentionally inflicted upon the child. No one conceives a child planning from the start that the child will end up in an orphanage!
In one sense you can say they are, they become adoptive parents. But they are not the children's original parents, that is correct. If it were possible for the children to have stayed with their original parents, anyone would agree that would have been preferable to ending up in an orphanage. I don't see your point.
The best chance a child has to grow into a well adjusted adult is to have both a loving father and a loving mother who are married to each other. Children can overcome the deficit of one parent but no loving parent would purposely deprive their child of their mother or father.
One needs only to look at the overwhelming percentage of the prison population that came from a home without a father to see how detrimental that condition can be. Two gay "dads" don't equal a real father.
Gay parents are worse than vegan parents who deprive their children of necessary nutrients they need to grow physically. Both instances are child abuse.
The other problem with gay parents is the issue of pedophilia that is far more prevalent in the LGBTQLMNOP community than any of them will admit. Being "born that way" is one of the biggest lies swallowed hook, line, and sinker by modern NPC society. There are no gay babies. Homosexuality is a corruption in the natural developmental process of a human being through environmental pressures (chemical hormone disruptors) and/or societal-behavioral pressures. The societal pressures range from minor (suggestive television programing), to major (childhood sexual trauma). Homosexuals reproduce by grooming and raping children. There is a reason they fought so hard to get gay leaders into the Boy Scouts, why they are pushing to rebrand pedophiles as "Minor Attracted Persons", and why Drag Time Story Hour is never performed at retirement homes.
The gay Georgia couple busted for raping and pimping out their adopted children should be all we need to see to end the despicable practice of handing vulnerable children over to potential predators.
Use the following model with a focus on the child's benefit: Let's say the best family is something like the Romney's - wealthy, wholesome, stable, so they get 100; let's say the worst family is a single-mother lesbian who is addicted to crack, so that gets 0. In between, you have all kinds of combos. Straight parents in an unstable marriage who get a divorce (60?); straight parents who are very loving but are also poor and can't provide stability (65?); straight parents where one is addicted to alcohol (50?), etc. Let's say the bar for providing a nurturing environment is 75. I would argue that Dave Rubin and his partner score a good 85, even 90. Meaning, they are much better than most other possible combos.
Even if we accept this premise, it only means that there are worse things which could've happened to the child, which is always true of practically any situation. It doesn't justify the decision of the child's mother to hand them off to a pair of gay men at birth (or shortly after) in exchange for money.
Notice the threshold. If the expected threshold is a standard deviation above the average parental score, I think this is more than justified. Meaning, if average parental score is, whatever, 50, and through adoption or IVF you can expect something much higher, then the benefit of the child more than justifies it. For a more colorful illustration, imagine a dying mother having to decide to whom to give her baby. On the left there are Adam and Steve the accountants with a nice house and no known addictions; on the right there are semi-employed Amanda and Phil who have face tattoos, a love of weed, and a history of cheating on one another. Clearly the gay couple would be the better choice. So as always, Prudence and Moderation provide a better guide than overarching abstract principles.
In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.
>Notice the threshold. If the expected threshold is a standard deviation above the average parental score, I think this is more than justified. Meaning, if average parental score is, whatever, 50, and through adoption or IVF you can expect something much higher, then the benefit of the child more than justifies it.<
This is a terrible model for pretty obvious reasons. Let's say I'm Mitt Romney and my kid would be at a 100 normally, but I have a fetish where I enjoy torturing children, and so I sometimes subject my kid to painful humiliation rituals. Maybe this brings his overall "life threshold score" or whatever down to only 80. That's still above 75, so that means it's okay for me to have a kid explicitly for this purpose and do this to them? I don't think so.
The correct working model, not complicated and easily arrived at through simple moral intuition, is that you don't do things which hurt children or make them worse off. Your duty is to provide the child with the best upbringing that you can, not to reach a certain bare minimum theoretical threshold and then just do whatever you want.
>In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.<
Whether something can be "undone" has little or nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Evil is a constant that can never be fully eradicated, or even mostly eradicated. The world will always be full of large amounts of evil, of all varieties, all over the place. This does not mean that we must pretend that evil is not evil.
I disagree. True, we didn't define what goes into the threshold but I would argue that torturing a child drops the parental scope to zero, not 80. If you think that growing up with gay parents is akin to torture you would need to defend that argument. I don't think humanity is aware of torture-like damage that is visited upon a child whose parents are same-sex. It's an empirical question at this point, not something that should be guessed at or pronounced in an oracular fashion.
The idea of evil is actually key to the way we should handle the cataclysm of modernity. Porn, addiction, nihilism, etc., are all evils we should push back on. Women having jobs and homosexuals living together... eh... not really "evil" to the same degree.
>In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.<
You've missed the point entirely. The point is that you can't justify doing something that is bad for a child by pointing to all the other stuff you did that was good for them.
>The idea of evil is actually key to the way we should handle the cataclysm of modernity. Porn, addiction, nihilism, etc., are all evils we should push back on. Women having jobs and homosexuals living together... eh... not really "evil" to the same degree.<
Are you saying that homosexuality is "not evil to the same degree" as porn, or not evil at all?
Personally, I think evils which seek to erode and destroy basic family structures are pretty high up on the list of greater or lesser evils. Wherever one wants to rank them, I'd definitely place them high enough to be worthy of attention and pushback.
No, I don't think homosexuality is evil to the same degree or evil at all (although it is unfortunate). I mostly draw here on Scruton's meticulous analysis of sexual perversion. I highly recommend.
Your rating of poor but loving parents at 65 is ludicrous. Poverty is not a static condition, especially if one goes to work. A loving father, short of some disability, would more likely than not lift his family out of poverty before his child graduates high school.
The need for a child to have a sense of belonging is incredibly powerful.
I think you would be hard pressed to find an adopted child who wouldn't choose to be with loving but poor biological parents over rich step parents if given the chance.
I’m not super committed to these scores but notice that I did posit very poor AND incapable of providing stability. Stability is typically considered critical in child development research.
The point is, while Dave Rubin and his partner cannot offer a Romney 100, they are likely much better than most possible options and so from the perspective of the good of the child, I have no issue with it.
You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.
I'm also assuming that, since none of the objections you lay out here apply to lesbians, only gay men, you are totally okay with kids having two mums?
>You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.<
I agree, or at least one would hope that's the case. It would actually be interesting to be able to study the sexual behavior of gays that have "children" compared to gays in general and see how they differ. Anyways, I was just making the broad point there that you have to take off your liberal individualism hat when children are involved. I don't think every gay couple that adopts kids is promiscuous (hopefully most of them aren't!).
>I'm also assuming that, since none of the objections you lay out here apply to lesbians, only gay men, you are totally okay with kids having two mums?<
Why would you think everything I've said here only applies to gay men, not to gay women? I don't see how that's the case at all. The only thing lesbians might have going for them is that one of them can carry their "child," and thus the kid doesn't need to be separated from their mother at birth. But you still have to tell them the lie that they have "two moms," they still grow up without a father, etc.
"You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships."
About 50% of gay couples are in open relationships, compared to <5% of straight couples.
> You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because indirect evidence, e.g., the way monkeypox spread, how often "gay parents" turn out to be pedophiles, suggests otherwise.
Do we have any evidence that "gay parents" molest their "children" more often than normal parents? I see this claim sometimes but I've never seen any evidence to back it up. Obviously, if you're anti-gay, that evidence would be pretty useful to have around.
Obviously I agree it's a taboo subject and that people should be allowed to study it, but where did you get the "30% despite being 3%" figure from? It must have come from something, right?
My understanding was that monkeypox had a very low transmission rate outside of the bathhouses, but the outbreak was sustained by the MSM (men who have sex with men) subculture. This meant loads of cases within the gay community (and specifically, the horny degenerate bit of the gay community), driven by a specific high-risk behaviour, and the occasional case beyond it caused by pure chance.
I could be wrong about this, of course. If it's true that the odd cases of children contracting the virus were caused by child abuse, then Stonewall and the WHO and bunch of other organisations have a lot of explaining to do. "I didn't want to risk spreading homophobia" is one thing - I was already critical of this attitude when it was interfering with the public health management of a nasty disease; but if it was throwing kids to the wolves then that's obviously unconscionable.
The best argument in favor of gay parenting is in the context of foster children, which is how most gay people I personally know ended up with children (as far as I can tell, surrogacy remains something available to rich people only). If you have ever spent any time in a state-run group home or know anything about what it takes to be removed from parental custody and placed in state custody, you know that the homes from which foster kids are coming are absolutely horrendous. The state run group homes are almost as bad, they're basically boot camp for learning to become a violent felon. Foster kids are almost unquestionably better off with "two dads" or "two moms" because the real-world alternative is that they are essentially raised by wolves. I object to religious groups that facilitate adoptions being forced to place kids with gay parents (i.e. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia) but I am hard pressed to come up with secular reasons why the state shouldn't do it.
Yes, I touched on this when I pointed out that to claim an altruistic motivation for adoption, gay couples need to adopt an older child who might really not be wanted by anyone else. I think you can make a much more reasonable case that it's good for a responsible gay couple to come in and foster a kid instead of that child remaining in state custody. However, that doesn't demonstrate that "gay parents" are the same as real parents, it only demonstrates that they can be better than an extremely bad alternative (so, ultimately it's not saying all that much).
> If you have ever spent any time in a state-run group home or know anything about what it takes to be removed from parental custody and placed in state custody
If you've ever interacted with CPS, you know the answer is "disturbingly little".
Disagree with both of your points as a matter of fact. CPS may have a low threshold for temporary removal, but for permanent termination of parental rights in my state they seemed to do just about anything to avoid it. Parents would be on drugs, house in chaos, facing felony charges, and CPS would do nothing or, if they did something, would still try to reunite the kid and parent later. In some cases (Native Americans) this is mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act.
As for the backlog to adopt; the backlog to adopt a newborn is probably long. The backlog to foster and then adopt a kid a few years older, well, it can’t be too high because the foster home I used to get called out to was literally always full and CPS never had anywhere to send kids if they were taken into custody. And the foster parents CPS did use were sometimes pieces of work themselves. The gay couples I know who adopted foster kids did so despite knowing that there was a real chance the state would take the kid away after a year and a half and put him back with a house full of drug addicted felons simply because they were biologically related.
> The backlog to foster and then adopt a kid a few years older, well, it can’t be too high because the foster home I used to get called out to was literally always full and CPS never had anywhere to send kids if they were taken into custody.
The impression I had is that both can be true due to the way advanced bureaucracies tend to work.
The bureaucracy doesn't help, but with women waiting too long to have kids and the easy access to abortion in the US, the number of newborns available for adoption is far fewer than the families who want to adopt newborns.
If I cut off my infant child's left arm, and this upsets them once they grow old enough to understand what was done to them, am I justified in telling them to get over it because they owe their existence to me?
I like the reasoned and logical arguments in your post. This is from a 2018 article I read (and saved) about a magistrate that was fired in the UK for deigning to voice his opinion in favor of the nuclear family.
(Source: World News Daily by Bob Unruh)
“The old model of the adoption industry was that its customers were the children in need of adoptive parents. These customers, the children, were entitled to the best service available,” he said. “The new model of the adoption industry has somehow become that the children are now the commodity supplied, and that the prospective adopters are the customers. This has given adoptive parents consumer rights, at least in theory, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of protected characteristics.
“The demotion of children, from customers to commodity, and the exaltation of the adopters, from commodity to customers, is itself a great evil.”
I agree 💯.
Sadly in my deep blue state, gay adoptive couples are given priority over heterosexual couples.
This is some weird ass shit. Touch grass homie.
No, it's not weird. It's sensible and serious. It upsets you emotionally, so you've chosen to do a reversal and use the "weird" card because it makes you mad.
This entire article could also be written about introducing a child to Christianity at a young age. I say this as a Christian. The idea that this specific group of people can specifically indoctrinate children in a way that is more harmful than other ideologies is laughable.
Depending on how the ideology is manifested, I don't disagree. The difference is that merely by virtue of even entertaining this idea of a "gay family," certain very visible and very significant ideological signals are being sent. If every so-called Christian that would indoctrinate children in a way that is harmful and abusive were to be branded with a highly visible red letter A on their face, then you'd probably advocate for keeping kids out of the care of people wearing that big red letter A, no?
God commands us to raise our children in the one true Faith. Truth can only come from God, which means any ideology outside of Christianity is false and therefore harmful.
There is only one true path and it is narrow. All other paths lead to hell. The notion that anybody else's ideologies are just as valid as God's Word is an acceptable belief for a unitarian, but not for a Christian.
Leviticus 20:13 makes God's views on homosexuals abundantly clear. They are guilty in their sin and any notion that they can " prove themselves innocent" in order to be allowed unfettered access to children is laughable.
Please, keep telling somebody else how to live their Christianity. I could quote dozens of Bible verses right back at you telling you not to do this.
Please do.
"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17
I'm not telling you how to live your life. The Word of God instructs Christians on how to live their lives. If you have a problem with clear instructions in scripture, your problem is not with me but with the Father.
God did not put pen to paper and write the Bible. People did. There are parts of the Bible I could tell you to follow and you would reject them outright. The idea that this book is infallible and everything in it is the word of God and none of it can be questioned is insane. It contradicts itself often and thoroughly. Using your own experience and knowledge to parse it and use it as a guide on how to live your life is the proper way to approach it.
If you want to stone your wife when they disrespect you, go ahead. I couldn’t care less that the Bible tells me to do this.
Again, feel free to quote any scripture you find appropriate.
It would be a bit disingenuous for you to do so, as you clearly do not believe it to be true. The Bible is not a choose your own adventure book that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and disbelieve.
As far as capital punishment for infidelity, I would be in favor of that being codified into civil law. People would take entering into and maintaining their marriages more seriously if that was the case. The sentence would still have to be carried out by the community (our civil justice system) just as it was in Deuteronomy.
You're very, very upset by this.
From an actual response to “umad” in three posts, none of which I was talking to you in.
I’ll pray for you!
You may do whatever you like. No point in giving you a substantive answer because you act like a shit head. And you're mad.
He’s mad. 🤔 Can’t be mad…
What if the parents are white supremacists, nihilists, Marxist communists? Not all ideologies are equal. Many are evil and destructive.
It’s truly odd you approach one group as guilty until proven innocent and the other innocent until proven guilty.
Well, again: One group is the proven control group that has been the norm for literally thousands of years. You will have a very hard time finding anyone out there who resents being raised in a stable two-parent household where mother and father are both present in a functional marriage. The other group, those who wish to become "gay parents," are the ones who want to run an experiment that has never been done before. And if you go looking for people who resent being raised in circumstances radically different from the norm, you will find a lot of them!
So in light of that, yes, the burden of proof is on the people who want to make a major deviation from the proven formula. Again: The well-being of innocent children is at stake, so there is a moral duty to meet this burden of proof.
And you say this as a Christian right?
Can you give an example of a widespread ideology or belief children were born into that you think also needed to prove their ability to raise children, outside of homosexuality? And what specifically did that group do or not do to prove such ability?
I'd have the same criticism of basically any alternative family norms that deviate too far from the ideal without apparent justification. Here's one that I think is highly questionable at best, i.e. these people probably shouldn't be doing this to their kids:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFWDteOZLFM
The thing that is special about Le Gays is that they have hijacked the power of the state and wielded it to impose their ideology top-down. I think the practices of the FLDS are immoral too, but the state-run public schools aren't trying to teach my kids that what the FLDS does is okay.
I think being a “van life” family is far more of a choice than being homosexual. I will ask again: Can you provide an example of another ideology, religion, ect. (rather than a lifestyle that aligns more with a hobby like living in a van) that you believe is obligated to demonstrate they have/had the ability to raise children, and how did that ideology do or not do so, in your eyes?
Did you not read the comment? Look up the FLDS.
You are conflating morality with validity. It is valid for a homosexual couple to raise children, regardless of your moral hand wringing. Public schools are teaching that it is valid, you are the one saying they are teaching that it is moral.
Equality is not oppression.
I think "valid" is meaningless. If it means something, please explain what that is.
Equality is not sameness. What you do is refuse to acknowledge differences and insist that men and women are interchangeable in parent child relationships. They are not.
I recognize your game, and I'm not going to comply with what you're trying to do. You're trying to have a "win" by going "found the homophobe!" Childish. No compliance with your nonsense.
Any family arrangement that doesn't have a stable mother and father is second best.
Okay, trying to split the difference here.
Let's say that a child being brought up in a stable two-parent household is preferable. Let's really grasp the nettle and concede that it is better if these two parents are opposite genders (or opposite sexes, whatever, let's not muddy the waters).
That's not the relevant question for whether two men or two women should be allowed to parent a child, though. It's not like stopping gay people having kids is going to cause straight couples to have correspondingly more. So the relevant question is whether a child growing up in such an environment is better than no child at all.
And if women in desperate poverty in rural sub-Sarahan Africa are having kids (and not only that, but having more of them than anyone else in the world), then clearly the bar for "is this life worth living?" is actually surprisingly low. There's no way that a child in a stable middle-class western household has it worse off than one born in Mozambique, just because the baby's parents don't between them have a pole and a hole.
Conservatives really will moan about collapsing birth rates until the cows come home, but also scream blue murder about any attempts to widen the notion of parenthood from their highly specific vision of what it should look like.
>That's not the relevant question for whether two men or two women should be allowed to parent a child, though. It's not like stopping gay people having kids is going to cause straight couples to have correspondingly more. So the relevant question is whether a child growing up in such an environment is better than no child at all.<
This demonstrates a basic failure to understand the fact that gay people cannot "have kids" in the same way as normal people. If a woman is to bear a child, it is in the best interests of that child that she raise them as their mother, because that is what she is. It is not in the best interests of the child to give them away at birth to a pair of homosexuals.
If enforcing this norm means that the woman will simply choose not to bear a child, then so be it. Again, there are very trivial thought experiments that one can conduct to demonstrate that this is the correct way of things. Suppose that someone says to you that they want to bear a child for the purpose of producing child pornography, and you tell them you won't allow them to do that, to which they respond with "fine, I won't have any children at all then." Should you walk back your stance on the grounds that it is better for the child to exist and have evil done to them than to not exist at all? Of course not.
If people wish not to reproduce, then that is their choice, but once reproduction has occurred, their choices now must take a backseat to the child's well-being. To do otherwise is evil and anyone can recognize this quite clearly when liberal political values aren't at stake.
Right, again the "a woman should not have her child taken away from her at birth" objection - which is a valid objection - applies only to gay *men.* But since I've already confirmed that you don't like lesbians having babies either - despite lesbians being more monogamous than straight people, they are trad and based - I conclude that it's not really concern for the loss of the mother-child bond that really motivates you.
I already replied to this talking point in another comment. It's also bad for a child to be raised without their father, to be lied to that they have "two moms," etc. Did you not see that reply?
No. I won't talk about this with you. Why? Because your purpose is to make sure not to engage my point of view. Splitting the difference? That's not what you're doing. You're already reducing it to a caricature, and you will continue to do so if I engage you. So I will not.
No reciprocity, then no conversation. Find someone else.
Just because something has been done for thousands of years does not make it morally correct, despite your interpretation of it as such. Just because something has been done for dozens of years does not make it morally incorrect, despite your interpretation as such. Nobody is obligated to prove anything whatsoever to you, just as you are free to believe what you want.
>Nobody is obligated to prove anything whatsoever to you, just as you are free to believe what you want.<
Again, *when the well-being of children is at stake*, no, you are not free to indulge the liberationist "do whatever you want" routine. If somebody says they believe that it's fine for their twelve year old to be drinking six packs of beer, I'm gonna call that out too.
“Nobody is obligated to prove anything whatsoever to you, just as you are free to believe what you want.” This is nihilism.
You are no more important than anyone else on this planet.
This idea of egalitarianism is a ridiculous concept. If your main waste line breaks and sewage is flooding into your crawl space you are going to place more value on a plumber than a daycare worker. If you have to go to work and need childcare the daycare worker may be important, but if you have to choose between the two, the plumber will win every time.
It is simply an objective fact that some people, either through superior genetics or superior discipline, are more important than other people.
You're lying and trying everything you can to characterize yourself, or gays, as victims.
You're deliberately failing to acknowledge the interests of the child. Your outlook is narcissistic. You only care about what "privileges" and "rights" adults get. You do not care one whit what this does to children. Oh sure, you'll mewl and try to say you do, but you don't.
I don’t believe that I said I was, although that’s a judgment I will leave to others. You didn’t respond to my statement—your comment is a non sequitur.
While it is true that a cow cannot fly, it can sail, though it would have to book a cabin in steerage.
Ever noticed how gay men only adopt boys?
Is there evidence that gay men predominantly adopt boys? That would be noteworthy if true.
Ever noticed that you’re wrong?
"If a woman is to bear a child, it us in the best interests of that child that she raise them as her mother because that's what she is. It is not in the best interests of the child to give them away at birth to a pair of homosexuals."
Right, yes, this objection applies to gay *men.* But I've already confirmed separately that you don't want lesbians having kids either (even though the divorce rate for lesbians is way lower than the divorce rate for straight couples, they're like the most monogamous people out there, they are trad and based). So the evidence is pointing towards your true objection being something else.
Children raised without fathers do quite poorly. It's possible that the median lesbian couple is a better environment than a gay male couple, but both are almost certainly wore than the median heterosexual married couple.
> Children raised without fathers do quite poorly.
Admittedly the bio-Calvinists would claim that's due to the genetic material of the kind of father who skips out on his children.
"I have not seen anyone who is supportive of “gay families” recognize this distinction, and I think there is a high chance that I never will, because it presents too great a threat to their priors."
Neither have I seen anyone who supports gay parentage recognize this distinction. At least not explicitly. Although I would consider the argument that I do often hear--that gay couples can raise a child just as well as straight couples--to implicitly recognize that distinction. They just believe the "evidence" already exists to support it.
The argument is always the same, however: "Wouldn't you rather be raised the gay architects with the BMW and the white picket fence than the drugged out mom whose string of drug dealer boyfriends beat you up every day?" It assumes that if there is one straight person who is a worse parent than one gay person in the world would be, then this is evidence that gay parentage is right. But all it is is evidence of what you said in the article: the prevailing moral code today is that I should be able to do anything I want as long as everyone consents (or nobody is harmed).
>The argument is always the same, however: "Wouldn't you rather be raised the gay architects with the BMW and the white picket fence than the drugged out mom whose string of drug dealer boyfriends beat you up every day?" It assumes that if there is one straight person who is a worse parent than one gay person in the world would be, then this is evidence that gay parentage is right.<
This is another argument that is so bad and lazy I can't give it credit as a serious defense of gay surrogacy. Obviously the proper comparison to make is to ask whether a child is better off being raised by a married man and woman or by two men who like to have anal sex with each other, *all else being held equal.* You need to demonstrate that the latter is *at least* not any worse than the former. On its own, this comparison fails a basic moral sniff test for normal people who aren't already emotionally invested in liberal political views--if I have a child in my care and I have to decide whether to place them with a married couple or a gay couple, and that is the *only* thing I know about the couples, I don't have any other information--obviously I'm picking the married couple, every time, easy peasy lemon squeezy.
>But all it is is evidence of what you said in the article: the prevailing moral code today is that I should be able to do anything I want as long as everyone consents (or nobody is harmed).<
Yes, but not with regards to children. Even today we still recognize that there is a positive duty to provide for a child's well-being, not to simply leave them to their own devices and let them do as they will. This is why we require by law that children must receive a proper education, we don't just say "well as long as the child consents to not going to school, they don't really have to." We also generally recognize that it's better for children to be raised by their mother and father in a stable household, except when that obvious truth threatens to come into conflict with liberal norms surrounding gay people, at which point we (and by "we" I mean liberals) temporarily forget about it.
"Yes, but not with regards to children."
Agreed. I took you to mean in your article that this principle about children is obvious, but that liberals/progressives have abandoned it. I suppose they have only abandoned it on those issues that are especially important to current year leftism.
Frankly, given the statistics the gay architects probably only want the kid as a sex toy.
There are going to be so many abuse stories coming out in the next 10 years from kids who came from 2 gay dad's it's gonna be crazy.
You seem not to grok that there is a fundamental problem with your argument: a couple adopting a child from an orphanage, or a woman marrying a widower with young children, according to your logic, are not parents.
In fact, as near as I can figure, a husband who raises the child of his unfaithful wife - even if the infidelity is unknown to him - cannot be the child’s parent.
“Putting aside the issue of consent”…
If you disagree with my assertions above, then please explain why these are not identical to your core claims against the very idea of gay parents.
>In fact, as near as I can figure, a husband who raises the child of his unfaithful wife - even if the infidelity is unknown to him - cannot be the child’s parent.<
That's completely correct. Do you think the average man would be happy to raise another man's kid after his wife cucked him? No! Obviously he would prefer that the kid actually be his. He might raise the kid because it's the best option for the child, but that's the thing, it is the best choice among a selection of undesirable options after something has gone off the rails. It's not something that you plan for from the start as the entire premise of having the kid in the first place--no one sets out to raise their wife's cuck child on purpose, and if they did we'd rightly think that's really messed up!
Conveniently ignoring the other cases I asked about: widower remarrying, couple adopting a child from an orphanage, whether the husband unaware of the infidelity are parents…
I thought it was obvious that the same thing applies to any of that. These are unfortunate circumstances that people have to confront after things have gone awry in life, they aren't situations that are deliberately planned out and then intentionally inflicted upon the child. No one conceives a child planning from the start that the child will end up in an orphanage!
And yet, per your logic, those people adopting from the orphanage aren’t “parents”
In one sense you can say they are, they become adoptive parents. But they are not the children's original parents, that is correct. If it were possible for the children to have stayed with their original parents, anyone would agree that would have been preferable to ending up in an orphanage. I don't see your point.
I didn’t specify the word “original” as a modifier anywhere, nor did you in your post. By the logic of your post, they aren’t parents, period!
You add the modifier “original” in your response above to deflect from answering my question, and to try to deflect from the point.
The best chance a child has to grow into a well adjusted adult is to have both a loving father and a loving mother who are married to each other. Children can overcome the deficit of one parent but no loving parent would purposely deprive their child of their mother or father.
One needs only to look at the overwhelming percentage of the prison population that came from a home without a father to see how detrimental that condition can be. Two gay "dads" don't equal a real father.
Gay parents are worse than vegan parents who deprive their children of necessary nutrients they need to grow physically. Both instances are child abuse.
The other problem with gay parents is the issue of pedophilia that is far more prevalent in the LGBTQLMNOP community than any of them will admit. Being "born that way" is one of the biggest lies swallowed hook, line, and sinker by modern NPC society. There are no gay babies. Homosexuality is a corruption in the natural developmental process of a human being through environmental pressures (chemical hormone disruptors) and/or societal-behavioral pressures. The societal pressures range from minor (suggestive television programing), to major (childhood sexual trauma). Homosexuals reproduce by grooming and raping children. There is a reason they fought so hard to get gay leaders into the Boy Scouts, why they are pushing to rebrand pedophiles as "Minor Attracted Persons", and why Drag Time Story Hour is never performed at retirement homes.
The gay Georgia couple busted for raping and pimping out their adopted children should be all we need to see to end the despicable practice of handing vulnerable children over to potential predators.
Use the following model with a focus on the child's benefit: Let's say the best family is something like the Romney's - wealthy, wholesome, stable, so they get 100; let's say the worst family is a single-mother lesbian who is addicted to crack, so that gets 0. In between, you have all kinds of combos. Straight parents in an unstable marriage who get a divorce (60?); straight parents who are very loving but are also poor and can't provide stability (65?); straight parents where one is addicted to alcohol (50?), etc. Let's say the bar for providing a nurturing environment is 75. I would argue that Dave Rubin and his partner score a good 85, even 90. Meaning, they are much better than most other possible combos.
Even if we accept this premise, it only means that there are worse things which could've happened to the child, which is always true of practically any situation. It doesn't justify the decision of the child's mother to hand them off to a pair of gay men at birth (or shortly after) in exchange for money.
Notice the threshold. If the expected threshold is a standard deviation above the average parental score, I think this is more than justified. Meaning, if average parental score is, whatever, 50, and through adoption or IVF you can expect something much higher, then the benefit of the child more than justifies it. For a more colorful illustration, imagine a dying mother having to decide to whom to give her baby. On the left there are Adam and Steve the accountants with a nice house and no known addictions; on the right there are semi-employed Amanda and Phil who have face tattoos, a love of weed, and a history of cheating on one another. Clearly the gay couple would be the better choice. So as always, Prudence and Moderation provide a better guide than overarching abstract principles.
In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.
>Notice the threshold. If the expected threshold is a standard deviation above the average parental score, I think this is more than justified. Meaning, if average parental score is, whatever, 50, and through adoption or IVF you can expect something much higher, then the benefit of the child more than justifies it.<
This is a terrible model for pretty obvious reasons. Let's say I'm Mitt Romney and my kid would be at a 100 normally, but I have a fetish where I enjoy torturing children, and so I sometimes subject my kid to painful humiliation rituals. Maybe this brings his overall "life threshold score" or whatever down to only 80. That's still above 75, so that means it's okay for me to have a kid explicitly for this purpose and do this to them? I don't think so.
The correct working model, not complicated and easily arrived at through simple moral intuition, is that you don't do things which hurt children or make them worse off. Your duty is to provide the child with the best upbringing that you can, not to reach a certain bare minimum theoretical threshold and then just do whatever you want.
>In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.<
Whether something can be "undone" has little or nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Evil is a constant that can never be fully eradicated, or even mostly eradicated. The world will always be full of large amounts of evil, of all varieties, all over the place. This does not mean that we must pretend that evil is not evil.
I disagree. True, we didn't define what goes into the threshold but I would argue that torturing a child drops the parental scope to zero, not 80. If you think that growing up with gay parents is akin to torture you would need to defend that argument. I don't think humanity is aware of torture-like damage that is visited upon a child whose parents are same-sex. It's an empirical question at this point, not something that should be guessed at or pronounced in an oracular fashion.
The idea of evil is actually key to the way we should handle the cataclysm of modernity. Porn, addiction, nihilism, etc., are all evils we should push back on. Women having jobs and homosexuals living together... eh... not really "evil" to the same degree.
>In general, I think it is futile to undo modernity. It doesn't mean we need to accept every feature and aspect of it, but much of it is not going away. Women will not return to their traditional roles, our cities will not go back to looking like the Shire, and our homosexuals will not vanish. The task of our generation is to build back after the cataclysm, but there's no going back.<
You've missed the point entirely. The point is that you can't justify doing something that is bad for a child by pointing to all the other stuff you did that was good for them.
>The idea of evil is actually key to the way we should handle the cataclysm of modernity. Porn, addiction, nihilism, etc., are all evils we should push back on. Women having jobs and homosexuals living together... eh... not really "evil" to the same degree.<
Are you saying that homosexuality is "not evil to the same degree" as porn, or not evil at all?
Personally, I think evils which seek to erode and destroy basic family structures are pretty high up on the list of greater or lesser evils. Wherever one wants to rank them, I'd definitely place them high enough to be worthy of attention and pushback.
No, I don't think homosexuality is evil to the same degree or evil at all (although it is unfortunate). I mostly draw here on Scruton's meticulous analysis of sexual perversion. I highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Desire-Philosophical-Roger-Scruton/dp/0826480381
Your rating of poor but loving parents at 65 is ludicrous. Poverty is not a static condition, especially if one goes to work. A loving father, short of some disability, would more likely than not lift his family out of poverty before his child graduates high school.
The need for a child to have a sense of belonging is incredibly powerful.
I think you would be hard pressed to find an adopted child who wouldn't choose to be with loving but poor biological parents over rich step parents if given the chance.
I’m not super committed to these scores but notice that I did posit very poor AND incapable of providing stability. Stability is typically considered critical in child development research.
The point is, while Dave Rubin and his partner cannot offer a Romney 100, they are likely much better than most possible options and so from the perspective of the good of the child, I have no issue with it.
You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.
I'm also assuming that, since none of the objections you lay out here apply to lesbians, only gay men, you are totally okay with kids having two mums?
>You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.<
I agree, or at least one would hope that's the case. It would actually be interesting to be able to study the sexual behavior of gays that have "children" compared to gays in general and see how they differ. Anyways, I was just making the broad point there that you have to take off your liberal individualism hat when children are involved. I don't think every gay couple that adopts kids is promiscuous (hopefully most of them aren't!).
>I'm also assuming that, since none of the objections you lay out here apply to lesbians, only gay men, you are totally okay with kids having two mums?<
Why would you think everything I've said here only applies to gay men, not to gay women? I don't see how that's the case at all. The only thing lesbians might have going for them is that one of them can carry their "child," and thus the kid doesn't need to be separated from their mother at birth. But you still have to tell them the lie that they have "two moms," they still grow up without a father, etc.
"You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships."
About 50% of gay couples are in open relationships, compared to <5% of straight couples.
> You note that it's not good for children to be growing up in households with "lots of promiscuous anal sex", but I suspect that the gay men who are adopting kids or even hiring surrogates (and I share your misgivings about surrogacy) are not the same ones finding hookups on Grindr every weekend, they are the gays in monogamous relationships.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because indirect evidence, e.g., the way monkeypox spread, how often "gay parents" turn out to be pedophiles, suggests otherwise.
Do we have any evidence that "gay parents" molest their "children" more often than normal parents? I see this claim sometimes but I've never seen any evidence to back it up. Obviously, if you're anti-gay, that evidence would be pretty useful to have around.
There's the fairly well known gays making up 30% of pedophiles despite being only 3% of the population.
Also, the tendency of the very gays the media celebrates as model adopters to turn out to be pedophiles.
Can you link a study or something on that? I'm genuinely curious.
What do you suppose would happen to any academic who performed such a study?
Obviously I agree it's a taboo subject and that people should be allowed to study it, but where did you get the "30% despite being 3%" figure from? It must have come from something, right?
My understanding was that monkeypox had a very low transmission rate outside of the bathhouses, but the outbreak was sustained by the MSM (men who have sex with men) subculture. This meant loads of cases within the gay community (and specifically, the horny degenerate bit of the gay community), driven by a specific high-risk behaviour, and the occasional case beyond it caused by pure chance.
I could be wrong about this, of course. If it's true that the odd cases of children contracting the virus were caused by child abuse, then Stonewall and the WHO and bunch of other organisations have a lot of explaining to do. "I didn't want to risk spreading homophobia" is one thing - I was already critical of this attitude when it was interfering with the public health management of a nasty disease; but if it was throwing kids to the wolves then that's obviously unconscionable.
The best argument in favor of gay parenting is in the context of foster children, which is how most gay people I personally know ended up with children (as far as I can tell, surrogacy remains something available to rich people only). If you have ever spent any time in a state-run group home or know anything about what it takes to be removed from parental custody and placed in state custody, you know that the homes from which foster kids are coming are absolutely horrendous. The state run group homes are almost as bad, they're basically boot camp for learning to become a violent felon. Foster kids are almost unquestionably better off with "two dads" or "two moms" because the real-world alternative is that they are essentially raised by wolves. I object to religious groups that facilitate adoptions being forced to place kids with gay parents (i.e. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia) but I am hard pressed to come up with secular reasons why the state shouldn't do it.
Yes, I touched on this when I pointed out that to claim an altruistic motivation for adoption, gay couples need to adopt an older child who might really not be wanted by anyone else. I think you can make a much more reasonable case that it's good for a responsible gay couple to come in and foster a kid instead of that child remaining in state custody. However, that doesn't demonstrate that "gay parents" are the same as real parents, it only demonstrates that they can be better than an extremely bad alternative (so, ultimately it's not saying all that much).
Also, the backlog for (straight) couples waiting to adopt is enormous.
> If you have ever spent any time in a state-run group home or know anything about what it takes to be removed from parental custody and placed in state custody
If you've ever interacted with CPS, you know the answer is "disturbingly little".
Disagree with both of your points as a matter of fact. CPS may have a low threshold for temporary removal, but for permanent termination of parental rights in my state they seemed to do just about anything to avoid it. Parents would be on drugs, house in chaos, facing felony charges, and CPS would do nothing or, if they did something, would still try to reunite the kid and parent later. In some cases (Native Americans) this is mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act.
As for the backlog to adopt; the backlog to adopt a newborn is probably long. The backlog to foster and then adopt a kid a few years older, well, it can’t be too high because the foster home I used to get called out to was literally always full and CPS never had anywhere to send kids if they were taken into custody. And the foster parents CPS did use were sometimes pieces of work themselves. The gay couples I know who adopted foster kids did so despite knowing that there was a real chance the state would take the kid away after a year and a half and put him back with a house full of drug addicted felons simply because they were biologically related.
> The backlog to foster and then adopt a kid a few years older, well, it can’t be too high because the foster home I used to get called out to was literally always full and CPS never had anywhere to send kids if they were taken into custody.
The impression I had is that both can be true due to the way advanced bureaucracies tend to work.
The bureaucracy doesn't help, but with women waiting too long to have kids and the easy access to abortion in the US, the number of newborns available for adoption is far fewer than the families who want to adopt newborns.
Yo, kids with parents? Dope, hope they have a great life.
Good one, Mr. Online.
No daddies are better than one, no mommies are better than one.
You undervalue existence and mistreatment is in the eye of the beholder.
If I cut off my infant child's left arm, and this upsets them once they grow old enough to understand what was done to them, am I justified in telling them to get over it because they owe their existence to me?