Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Gay Adoption

A few of my liberal friends have asked me what my beef with liberals is.  I assure you, I have no beef, not even some Whole Foods soy-based beef-like substitute, with liberals.  It’s stupidity I hate.  And while stupidity doesn't discriminate, it certainly seems to lean left and south.  I don’t know, maybe it’s me, maybe I’m missing something; the passion, the understanding, a soul, but just because something makes someone feel good doesn't mean it is good (think LSD or pretending there is a direct link between explosives and virgins).

I don’t give the left credit for much, but occasionally they blindly feel their way along and through what appears to be nothing more than dumb luck, fall into the right answer.  Most of what the left proposes is bound to fail because they think with their hearts and not their heads, unless it’s Clinton who thinks with his dick or Michael Moore whose thoughts, according to scientists, come from an ass canker.  But, gay adoption, a leftist cause, to me at least, makes sense. 

Here’s why.

First, the argument that gay couples will screw up a child’s delicate psychology just doesn’t hold water.  We’re all screwed up.   I’m shaking hands with crazy and my parents made me the old fashioned way, accidentally.  There might be some stigma through the high school years for kids growing up in certain parts of the country—what I like to call the Redneck Belt—but those are just the jocks afraid they can catch queer like they catch a cold, by licking each other’s balls in the locker room.

Second, outside of meeting a drunk and horny Kimbo Slice in a dark alley or becoming a prison bitch, you just can’t make people gay.  You can make guys effeminate so that they think tight jeans look good and you can make girly-girls lose some of their girly-ness so that they become tolerable, but you can’t make someone gay.  Even if you tried, at some point biology is going to kick in and they are going to throw out the drawer full of panties and start wearing men’s bikini briefs.  Heterosexuality… ease into it.  As a matter of fact, if the current rate of pusification of American boys continues at this alarming rate, we won’t know who’s sporting what kind of pee-pee parts until we see them naked. 

Third, I’m going to defer to the professional wisdom and ethics of the adoption agencies that they aren’t going to put a kid into the hands of a creeper (gay or straight) and I hope that their background check on potential adopting parents includes questions like: are you an ass-raping, creeper pedophile?  Check yes or no.  I’m also hoping the hoops the adoption agencies make you jump through makes the windowless 1970’s van with the word “Candy” spray painted on the side the best shot that these sick-o’s have at getting children.  Hey kids, don’t go near that van. 

I know that’s a lot of hopes, but if adoption agencies are putting kids in the hands of freaks that’s a fault in the system not reflective of homosexuals in general.  Also, I think that when most people think of gay they think of Mardi Gras gay and in a sense that sort of serves them right for all the years of in-your-face pseudofeminity with the affected lisps we’ve had to…erm… swallow.  But, there are also a lot of normal people out there who just happen to be gay and would like to adopt.  So as an adoption agency, unless one of the people sitting across from you is wearing a leather hat, no shirt, and ass-less chaps and his partner has a dildo strapped to his forehead, pass them on to round two.


  1. I'm a moral rightist and a financial everybody's-wrong-ist, so I say no to gay adoption off the cuff, knee-jerk, face value, etc.

    This blog makes a great point. My kids can only assume I'm straight; there certainly is no proof to be found, by them anyway. If the adoption agency is satisfied that the children going into the home will never see, hear, and definitely never smell any reason to believe the couple is homosexual, then perhaps they are worthy of a shot at the kid. My kids can assume I'm heterosexual because I'm living with a woman who wears a mutually exclusive ring, but a goodnight peck is all they'll see out of it.

    The only points I would challenge are 1. perhaps visceral homophobia is more widespread than the rural Redneck Belt, and 2. until gay marriage passes, a split of the parents would create an unprecedented custody situation to which no judge would want to lay his statutory John Hancock.

  2. I commend you for your intelligent and articulate article. A humorous read....it was inspiring and raised some important questions. I have taken it upon myself to complete some research into this controversial topic. I wanted to uncover cold hard systematic based evidence.

    I believe that being a 'filthy liberal' myself, I would usually have been basis and filter the information available to me. That is no way to justify anything. I can honesty tell you... I did not only research 'pro gay parenting articles'.... I have to admit, I visited many Christian web pages that were on offer. They were all edgar to tell of the 'sin' that is, homosexual parenting... but that... I am afraid is propaganda at its worst..... Actual, factual and empirical data as follows:

    "The Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing(Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971)

    Nor have they been found todetract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a)

    .......and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989).

    A common FEAR (Note the word FEAR) is that children living with gay or lesbian parents may be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent's friends or acquaintances....

    No evidence based research here... just scaremongering.

    Summary from research article:

    Overall, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents
    have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both
    sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded.

    I am a justification kind of person. I need evidence...I have found NO evidence to suggest there are reasons to be fearful of homosexual parents.

    I may be, and I quote Mr J Harless, "on crack" because I am a liberal...

    which, quite frankly I find insulting and degrading. I still like to think with my head as well as my heart Mr Harless, so stop your bitching and whining about liberals. We are all made of sub atomic particles and molecules...lib or con... don't you forget that buddy!

    Love, peace, blessings, kia ora and all that jazz.
    From your New Zealand BFF.


    1. There's no need to be insulted or degraded. If you, as a liberal, can support your claims with facts rather than feelings and make arguments that transcend the liberal talking points cheat-sheet, then you are not the target of my ire. I’ve stated over and over again (in my personal life at least), that I don’t care if people disagree with me as long as they can support their stance. If someone makes a good enough argument (something that I haven’t refuted a hundred times already), I’ll see that this argument is better, assimilate it, and move on. Too many people are too emotionally attached to their views.

      I wrote this, in part, to show that it's not just liberals who I'm after, but people that don't think, don't read, and just parrot whatever their particular party tells them to parrot. A la Pavlov, they sense a conservative and they start drooling leftist drivel.

      Brain-dead parrots exist on the right too, just not quite as many. The reason for this is manifold. For one, most media is skewed left and so the nonthinkers just absorb their twaddle by osmosis. For two, Hollywood and entertainment is skewed left, so people think it’s cool and/or intellectual to lean left. Three, university professors tend to lean left (some quite far left), and so during those very formative college years, students eager to please or be perceived as intellectuals will also lean left.

      “Oh, you’re a socialist, you must be so deep”. She said.

      “I am. Let’s call your legs wealth, and spread ‘em.”

      You get the idea.

      It’s not cool to lean right. It’s not perceived as intellectual. It automatically opens oneself up to be judged by the oh so open minded left who love diversity as long as it doesn’t disagree with them.

  3. Let me say first that I have read exactly zero of the sample populations of the above sources, but I did hear on NPR this Summer that Baylor and one other Texas University had recently released data from the ONLY longitudinal study of this topic covering hundreds of families instead of the sample populations studied before, mostly single-digit numbers and up to low teens. It did show reason for 'fear' and was already being denounced by gay/les/trans groups because some of the funding came from Christian groups who are openly against same-sex couples and their parenting.

    To that I say two things: give Baylor and Co. a little more credit for their scholarship, and perhaps gay/les/trans groups refused to throw money at this for 'fear' that 'fears' may be thereby more firmly founded.

  4. There is a house advantage of 5.26% if the ball lands in the 0 or 00 pocket. If that happens, all the opposite wagers will mechanically lose. Variety is vital to the success of any on-line casino, notably the top roulette websites listed right here at Casino.org. You also can expect to see several of} live roulette sport variants, with a extra realistic sport pace and a real croupier to 다파벳 work together with. Take a a glance at|have a glance at} our top-rated websites that have come through a vigorous 25-step reviews process proper now and luxuriate in half in} on-line roulette for real money on your desktop or mobile device.