If it decreases the infanticide of abortion, I would rather the child have a choice of this start than no start at all.
Why would it reduce abortion? Please tell me how gay “marriage” or homo adoption or anything related to this perversion prevents abortion. Please do tell.
“If it decreases the infanticide of abortion, I would rather the child have a choice of this start than no start at all.”
You are right. Also adoption by any loving couple is better than an orphanage or the foster care system in most states.
I would say 99% of kids in foster care will never be allowed to be adopted because of the legal perverted agenda of reunification with highly abusive parent. The same great minds that keep kids in the system never allowing them to be adopted are the same losers calling for gay adoptions. There is no shortage of heterosexual parents wanting to adopt. Many must wait for over a decade. The inflated foster care rates only make it seem that there is a parent shortage. No gays do not need to be foster parents either.
The child will choose?
lol
It will not decrease abortion, the left won’t support that.
It will increase the rate of child abuse, molestation and all kinds of perverted crap though.
Those are not the choices. Women do not abort because there are not enough adopters.
Liberal on evolution, liberal on homosexuality.
People claim to be liberal in one confined area. “Oh, I just believe this one thing about evolution, but otherwise I’m a hardcore conservative”, they say. Bull. Wet in one area, wet in others.
If a child is stuck in an orphanage with only a gay couple available to adopt him, yes, adoption by a single gay person is preferable, and failing even that, adoption by a practicing group of perverts, -- whether that group is said to be in a "marriage" or not, -- is also, perhaps, an option to be considered by the orphanage, a judge, and a child's next of kin.
But this is not the reality. The reality is that plenty of normal, normally married people pay thousand of dollars and adopt from Ukraine and China, because there is not enough children offered for adoption even for them.
Further, when the advocates for the homosexuals such as Romney speak of "gay couples right to adopt" they presume an equal right alongside the straight and married couples, not right to adopt a child in a theoretical emergency.
This is a good reason not to vote for Romney. The presidency we cannot save, but maybe we can teach the GOP mucks a lesson that will last a few election cycles.
Hey, Mitt -- Ever think about the welfare of the child before you snap off a one-liner like that?
Read a study sometime. Kids of gay "parents" have more problems, significant problems, than kids of heterosexual marriages, even children of divorced couples.
If it decreases the infanticide of abortion, I would rather the child have a choice of this start than no start at all.
How does that scenario arise? How many mothers-to-be can there possibly be, who, considering abortion, are dissuaded from aborting by the availability of a pair of gay men willing to play "catch" with her rejected child?
How is that good for the kid? Not only did Mommy want to abort him, but gave him away instead, and on top of that, she gave him to a pair of bodywaxed male models, who may or may not have Hep C and/or HIV -- how is that going to improve the kid's existential dilemma, that "Mother didn't want me"?