[Tidbit]

“Is this worse then Laura Ingraham adopting a baby to be raised by a single woman with a full time, day job, not to mention regular night time interviews?”

Yes.

How? Because Laura isn't gay? Because her politics and lifestyle aren't repugnant? Either way the children in question are being deprived of a home with a father.

[jessduntno]

“Because Laura isn’t gay?”

Yes. She might marry. I doubt the two Lesbian Ladies will.

“Because her politics and lifestyle aren’t repugnant?”

Yes. The child has a chance at a normal childhood and a MUCH better chance of doing well.

[achilles2000]

I’ll go with “because Laura isn’t a sodomite and her lifestyle isn’t repugnant.” But, then again, there are so many degenerate behaviors that go along with the “lifestyle” that it is hard to choose.

[Dianna]

How? Because Laura isn't gay? Because her politics and lifestyle aren't repugnant? Either way the children in question are being deprived of a home with a father.

Laura's child was a 3 year old in a third world orphanage. It was unlikely that the child would ever have a father OR a mother in those circumstances.

To condemn that child to further time in an orphanage in the hopes that she might one day have both a mother and father is evil.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.