Gays shouldn’t be able to adopt children: II

I was just thinking how much I love the right’s argument on this. Here’s a fictitious one, based on reality …

Right: Gays shouldn’t be able to marry or adopt kids.

Me: Why?

Right: It’s not natural.

Me: You’re drinking diet soda out of a plastic cup. That’s not natural.

Right: This is different.

Me: Why?

Right: It just is. The Bible says …

Me: The Bible is a religious text. That has nothing to do with this.

Right: Well, how would you feel if your kids were gay?

Me: Wouldn’t care.

Right: Of course you would.

Me: I wouldn’t.

Right: Of course you would.

Me: I wouldn’t.

Right: Of course you would.

Me: I wouldn’t.

Right: If we allow gay marriage and gay adoptions, we’ll further decay the traditional American family.

Me: The traditional American family is a myth.

Right: Remember the good ol’ days?

Me: They weren’t so good.

18 thoughts on “Gays shouldn’t be able to adopt children: II”

  1. I don’t agree that they shouldn’t be able to adopt children – I think they should. But I think that the right’s argument is a little more nuanced than you are giving it credit for. In court cases like the one in California and New York, they have presented a lot of studies about how children do best in a two-parent, two-gender home, etc., etc. Now, there are a lot of reasons that you can point to that the studies are a bunch of bullshit – and the California court certainly said so. But they aren’t arguing that it isn’t “natural” and they certainly aren’t invoking the Bible.

  2. To clarify, I am talking about the marriage court cases, but usually the children thing is the main basis for the right’s argument in those cases. So I think it’s applicable. It is fair to disagree with the right on this. But it is not fair to misrepresent their arguments to rig the fight in favor of your side.

    1. actually, M, i was sorta being kind by using the Biblical point. Because without it, there’s nothing. Sooooo many kids in foster care across the US … to not allow them all options is sinister.

  3. If two men were supposed to raise kids together, they’d be able to produce physically produce them together.

  4. Jeff – To be completely clear, I am in lockstep agreement with you. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples should be allowed to marry.

    But to say that without the Biblical point, there is “nothing” is a little lazy, I think. They’ve made actual points on this. They are in the public record, sometimes in cases they have even won. You should rebut those instead of pretending they haven’t been raised. That’s not fair.

  5. John
    If a single woman or man was supposed to raise a child alone they’d be able to physically produce them alone.

  6. Yes, Mr. Fetter, wouldn’t it be terrible if everybody were treated equally under the law, as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says. But I’m sure you’ll learn about that when you get to high school and take Civics.

    1. JP, Bobby Fetter is just some guy playing the part of an angry conservative. Don’t get all worked up … it’s a spoof.

  7. Mr. Bluth,

    The text of section 1 does not mention race. It was used to try to stem abuses after the Emancipation Proclamation, but section 1 (the part dealing with the equal protection clause) does not mention race.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  8. It doesn’t say race, but it was intended for race and race alone. No one who passed it was thinking about anything other than race. Sexual orientation, at this time, is not a protected class.

  9. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    .
    Gays are people pursuing happiness, it causes no loss of happiness to any reasonable person.
    They just want the liberty to live their life.

  10. jmw – I do not disagree with you. All I am saying is that if someone like Jeff wants to argue against the right on this, you have to meet the arguments they are actually making head-on, not just the arguments you think are actually behind the arguments they are making out loud.

  11. Here’s a coincidence for you- right under the post for this article on my facebook page was a post (on a completely different subject) by a good friend of mine who is the mother of 2 cute children and the wife of a wonderful woman. She shares funny stories about her adventures in parenting, much like the stories my straight friends post. They are a normal, happy family. And by the way, they had their kids via turkey baster, like so many straight couples do these days.

  12. By giving these fudgepackers the same RIGHTS as NORMAL people, it takes AWAY our rights. Their gain is our loss. If they want babies, then they need to make them the old fashioned way and it ain’t the stork bringing them a baby. In now way shall they be rewarded for their deviant lifestyle.

  13. Michael B
    Our forefathers were more accepting of Gays than our government today.
    Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was the man that taught Americans to fight against the British.
    He taught rapid fire, he taught the solders how to use a bayonet.
    He was inspector General and Major General of the Continental Army.
    He was Washington’s Chief of Staff.
    He was openly Gay.
    It is obvious that our Forefathers didn’t care.
    Somewhere along the line Americans lost sight of our foundation.

  14. jmw – Well and good. Do you think that fact helps apply the 14th Amendment to gays in a marriage context? I don’t. I think it has to be done state-by-state, ultimately. I don’t like it, but I think that’s how it will have to be done. At least for now. Stop worrying about the U.S. Constitution because it is, unfortunately, a losing battle. Start focusing on state legislatures.

Leave a Reply