Gay adoption uber alles

Over at Justin Vacula's blog, they are wringing their collective hands over the fact that Catholic Charities of Illinois is giving up the adoption business altogether rather than be bullied into placing children with same-sex couples. Why the state of Illinois is pressuring Illinois Catholic Charities into doing so rather than just leaving them alone is a mystery to me. It seems that the charitable organization wanted an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would "have allowed Catholic Charities to refer unmarried, cohabitating couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex, to other agencies so as to not violate the teachings of the Catholic faith". But the amendment failed to pass and you know the story, it's gay adoption uber alles and the possibility of opting out is apparently off the table.



I am quite sure that the charity in this case objected due to religious reasons along with others. However, I am not convinced that objections to young kids having to be canaries in a coal mine in a grand social experiment due to the lobbying efforts of radical gay activists necessarily need to be grounded upon religious reasons. After all, doesnt a charity that places these kids owe the childen they are dealing with the most optimal environment possible in which to live? Please consider the following...



First, " Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation." Someone once stated that gender does not equal role playing, and I agree.



To argue that homosexual and heterosexual couples are quite similar to one another flies in the face of empirical evidence. It seems that the right-wing, religious zealots over at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association seem to agree on the following facts...

• "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines
  
  
  
  
• Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population






• Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis






• it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men






• Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies






• gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa"

In addition to these facts eminating from the gay community, those homophobes over at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence state that "23% of men reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male intimate partner." Exactly how do these numbers stack up against married, heterosexual couples?



Of course all of this is before we get into the fact that..

"Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst. Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt "uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with" and were the least sociable. Although homosexual couples gave their children "more freedom", married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible. Children of homosexuals were "more confused about their gender" and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender)."

And all of this is just off the top of my head. I'm just some putz sitting in his undershirt in Florida, laughing at the leftist nonsense trotted out as legitimate commentary because none of this information was that hard to find. I can hardly wait to hear the rebuttals. Can we at least hope for, "B-b-b-but a stable home environment isn't everything JD!"