[Antoninus]

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

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

[jazusamo]

"The first is not an ideal situation. The second is child abuse."

You definitely got that right.

[Paul C. Jesup]

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

State bureaucrats don't a damn about what happens to children, it's just a 9 to 5 job to them that they can push onto someone else.

Most homosexuals, like hetrosexuals, are not child molesters.

Do you care to now revise your above statement?

[CowboyJay]

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

Actually, either will result in serious personality problems under current evangelistic-atheist state policies.

A correctly formed personality requires a moral system. An atheistic child is an atheistic child. One will produce a liberal mindset, and the other will produce a robot socialist, IMO. They can still adjust, but will never really awaken to full adulthood. Either will be equally deadly to the child's spirit.

Our government needs to get completely out of the child-rearing and adoption biz, and hand it over to people who view children as something other than mind-slaves.