This is collectivist and short-sighted thinking.
First of all, if a straight family wants to adopt there is no shortage of kids who need adopting. You are assuming that gay couples are taking the ability to raise kids from straight couples. Instead, think of adopting couples, gay or straight, like a back-up running team for when the first string gets injured.
My post was a reaction to the speech of the gay activist who asserted, without any rational basis for doing so, that gay parents were "
EQUALLY ABLE" parents as a traditional family. That is pure hogwash, and I don't have to accept bullshit as gospel, no matter how many people call the hogwash truth. It takes a man and woman to make a child, it follows that it should take a man and woman to raise one.
This issue has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with being gay. Or whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It has to do with the reality of how the human species reproduces. The quotation I reacted to was a clear example of the agenda of the gay activists. They are demanding that society abandon it's common sense so as not to offend their delicate self-esteem. These assholes are not going to stop until they have forced the courts to view each and every couple, no matter how perverted and unnatural their behavior is, as equal under the eyes of the law. They're going to keep going until they make it a hate crime to consider the butt-plug flaunting ass-less chaps wearing Folsom street fair celebrant anything less than a perfect parental figure. I don't care if people stick lawn furniture in their ass and parade up and down Folsom street, but don't tell me that that behavior makes somebody equally suitable to raise children as a traditional family.
Secondly, this is a collectivist statement implying that ALL straight couples are better at raising kids than ALL gay couples.
No matter how good or caring the gay parents are, they can never ever provide a child-rearing environment that demonstrates a reproductively viable family environment for the children under their care. That's not collectivism. It's obvious goddamn fact. Every apple falls off its tree. Is gravity collectivist?
If you let the free market work it out and allow groups to adopt to whoever they want, then they would be able to deny a straight couple who lacks the ability and perhaps the means to raise a child and give them instead to a functional, friendly gay couple. You, on the other hand, want to put them in a position where they can only choose the dysfunctional straight couple.
You think the adoption agenices are looking for dysfunctional straight families as adoptive households? You think these organizations are going to place their charges with households full of convicted child rapists, because "well, there was nobody else who wanted the kid"? That's ridiculous.
And no, I don't want to "force" organizations to adopt to gay couples, I just think it's ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt when there are so many kids in foster homes, which I would argue is much worse than growing up with gay parents in a stable household.
Well you better re-evaluate your position dude. Because it's clear that that is in fact the agenda of the gay activists. They are fighting to remove judgement and replace it with politically correct nonsense. Their stated objective is to force the courts to evaluate all familial relationships as equally suitable for child-rearing. That is immediately going to morph into quota demands for adoptive placement with gay families. How collectivist is that? It won't be about the courts or adoption agencies evaluating individuals as to their fitness to be parents, it will be about the ACLU crying that only 5% of adoptions go to gay families and that there needs to be more "fairness".
