This is in answer to a question I was asked. Basically, the question was this: is it better to let homosexuals to adopt a kid if no one else will? In response, I said the following:
1. If you place a kid with homosexuals, that’s an inherently unstable situation. And a foster child doesn’t need any more instability in his life.
a) The incidence of suicide, drug use, illness, and domestic violence is higher among homosexuals than the general population. And I’m sure some of this is underreported since it’s politically incorrect to publish stats about the homosexual lifestyle that expose the aggravated problems with that lifestyle.
b) Homosexuals have open relationships with a lot of turnover among the partners. This is especially true among men (and our laws wouldn’t permit discrimination between male homosexuals and lesbians). So this also fosters an unstable domestic environment.
c) In my observation, lesbians are lesbians, not because they’re attracted to other women, but because they’re angry with men. This is not a proper environment to raise either a boy or girl. To have man-hating women raise a boy or girl invites social malformation.
d) We know from the Catholic priestly abuse scandal that homosexual men are prone to seduce teenage boys. If you place a boy in their custody, then, sooner or later, you’re exposing him to a high risk of molestation.
e) Boys and girls need normal, natural role-models. That’s how we mature socially and emotionally. Needless to say, they don’t get that in a homosexual environment.
f) One of the problems with homosexuality is an inability to distinguish between sexual affection and asexual affection. Since both forms of affection are directed at members of the same sex, that’s catastrophic for child-rearing.
Children need physical affection, but they don’t need sexual affection (which is very harmful at that age).
g) Homosexuals are bound to hate Christian values. You’re placing a child in an environment that’s bound to be militantly anti-Christian.
h) Even if they’re raised by a secular couple, that’s a more natural, normal, healthy environment.
2. Homosexuals are statistically insignificant. (The 10% figure was discredited years ago.) So there aren’t enough homosexuals to take up the slack, even if it were an otherwise good idea (which it’s not).
3. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of having kids the old fashioned way. They adopt, not because they can’t conceive kids of their own, but to make a political statement. To prove something. So they don’t adopt kids for the sake of the kid, for the kid’s benefit. The child is just an equal rights trophy.
4. It may be objected that you can have many of the same problems in a heterosexual family. That’s true, but...
a) By definition, placing a child with homosexuals is a worst-case scenario. It’s bound to be really bad in various ways.
We know, in advance, that we’re harming the child when we place him in that environment.
That’s not automatically the case with normal foster care. And there are degrees of harm.
b) There’s a difference between placing a child with strangers and removing a child from the custody of his biological parents. For better or worse, children have a profound, built-in emotional bond with their biological parents.
As such, it’s generally best to leave kids in the care of their own parents unless the situation is quite dire. Even when separation is necessary, that still takes an emotional toll.
So, up to a point, we tolerate situations involving a biological family that we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) tolerate when placing a child with strangers.
I don’t see that placing a child with homosexuals is much different than placing a child with a pimp or junkie.