The case of Frank Lombard does reflect badly on gay adoption and the tactic approve that the gay community has for child pornography, child sex art, and the idolizing of young pre-teen males not specifically but when taken in context of increasing numbers of incidents involved gay activists that are down played and even ignored by the media conservative and mainstream. A gay man can be held up for scrutiny only when he is seen to be an asset of affirmation of the cause but when he is no longer an asset he is no longer even referred to as a gay man. Mark Sandford has been offered up to the scrutiny and those who detract from him have no problem carrying analysis of him far beyond his scandalous affair but when it is a Duke Associate Director of Health Equity studies in charge of researching AIDs in the rural south and living in what is a self described gay eco friendly commune having adopted two African American boys for the sake of molestation there is almost no scrutiny and a deathly silence that is uncanny. Silence from the liberal church where he was a member of the vestry. Silence from the close knit community, and a terse statement from Duke University.
Frank Lombard admitted to specifically targeting African American children because they were easier to adopt especially younger ones and pimped those kids out to a cop. The whole story is interesting and requires analysis in order to heal the community on this issue or that is what I've heard in the past. The question should be asked in light of a growing body of research showing that homosexuals have been molested themselves as children to a far greater degree than the heterosexuals, we also know that those who are molest especially men are far more more likely to become perpetrators themselves. This is an opportunity to see if what the gay activists and their allies have been saying about there being no connection between the homosexual lifestyle and molestation is true.
We are making a mistake in allowing this opportunity to have a debate which could indeed result in the protection of many children and also keep the door open for gay men who like one of my friends who was molested as a child by his gay uncle to get the help they need but no one wants to talk about these things. No one dares be outraged in public and allow a gay man to be called to the floor for his bad behavior. Only Mark Sanford and shoe tapping politicians in bathroom stalls are afforded this scrutiny in order to help push forward an agenda that denies so many adopted children something that is so simple but which this society refuses to affirm the value of and that is a Mom and a Dad.
I reject the premise that someone who violates their marriage vows has anything to do with “gay marriage” whatsoever. Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. Whether a married person is faithful or not is between them and their spouse, and their Lord and Savior, to be worked out between and among them. It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals trying to pervert the institution of marriage.
Meanwhile, there's no net social benefit to "gay" adoption: Homosexual guardians don't do anything positive that can't be done better by normal people, because normal people are on average less crazy.
And as to costs, what homosexual guardians do that is, to put it mildly, negative (such as abusing children), they do at a much higher rate than normal people. And those "negative" acts are not the peccadillos that get social workers so excited, such as spanking, but "sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance." So sorry, adultery is bad, but the cost in Heaven and on earth does not approach that of sodomy.
Hence, Sanford's problem doesn't put a scratch in the institution of marriage, whereas what the perv from Duke was doing is a true indictment of all the idiotic accommodations made to homosexuality in the West. It is a mental illness that needs to be contained or cured, because it poses a hazard to the main purpose of human society: the raising of healthy children.