If you click here, you can read my original post on gay adoption. The full comment from Clay (from which I excerpt below) is there too. Feel free to read the whole comment so nobody can accuse me of decontextualizing. God, I love that word. Ready? Go:
Following your logic, then, the local Priest, Pastor, Reverend, Parson, Rabbi, Imam etc. can be an avowed practicing homosexual, or an adulterer actively involved with another woman (or man, in the case of my denomination which has female priests), or drug addict, or alcoholic, or Satan worshipper on the side etc.
Of course a homosexual should be allowed to be a Priest! They would take a vow of celibacy just like everyone else. (Although that’s a whole different topic.) However: equating homosexuality (which has no moral component) with drug addiction or alcoholism (which has a huge moral and ethical impact on the active alcoholic/addict) is just wrong. They are utterly different things, and don’t belong on the same list. I may not be gay, but I am an alcoholic. I know what I’m talking about on this one.
After all, we are all sinners. That shouldn’t have anything to do with our lives or what we want for ourselves, right? And all sins are the same. Having a lustful fantasy about a girl in your High School class is surely on the same par with actually raping her. Right?
That’s just a fucked up and senseless thing to say, Clay. I don’t believe that at all, and you don’t either. No other comment required. It’s wrong by definition. If you believe what you wrote above, just say: “I believe fantasy and action are identical.” Man. And as a side note, I wouldn’t equate a “lustful fantasy” with “rape fantasy,” although apparently you do. Ick.
Obviously, homosexuals can’t reproduce. Therefore, they are a dying breed, so to speak. Allowing them to adopt children, who aren’t necessarily homosexual themselves, only threatens to expand the amount of human extinction.
Clay, where do you get this stuff? “Expand the amount of human extinction?” Somehow I don’t sense that the extinction of the human race due to lack of reproduction as an impending threat. Feel free to document otherwise. Really. Now, I don’t actually think that having gay parents means that you’re more likely to be gay… but I don’t really care, either. Again, feel free to document otherwise.
While I am no fan of Evolution per say, It seems quite obvious that in the interest of the preservation of the human race, homosexual indoctrination of children is probably not a good idea.
No fan of evolution per se? Are you saying evolution is incorrect? Spelling errors aside, even the Catholic church is pro-evolution. And once again: I’m pretty sure that underpopulation isn’t an issue on this planet.
I am all for their right to co-habitate. I draw the line at parenthood. A child needs both a mother and a father. That is nature’s way, and we would do well to respect it.
Do you think that gay people were invented by giant space caterpillars? All because they are the minority, that doesn’t mean they aren’t natural. Do you think left-handed people are unnatural, too?
And besides: I have a sneaking suspicion that you drive a car, ride in airplanes and wear clothes. Why? Because nature gave you the capacity to do so. In the same way that nature gave gay people the capacity to be loving parents. If you think that gays shouldn’t be parents, then you should stop doing, wearing, and using anything that doesn’t come out of your own ass. Or mouth. Or nose. Or ears. Pick your orifice. After all, you’re denying people the right to do something they have the capacity to do well, all because it’s not “natural.”
Okay. I’m done.
Love to all. Even you, the receptionist at the Washington Square Hotel.