.:gayety:.

I was talking with a friend and he asked how I felt about gay adoption. I responded that I hate the topic, but proceeded to offer some of my thoughts. I think that a child should have good male and female influences in his or her life, preferably influences that are lifelong. Consider, why do we have godparents? Or perhaps, if not why, then what function should they serve? So I think the conservative thought is right in that regard--to the need for good role models of both genders (here I'm not sure which is appropriate, gender or sex, but I will say gender because that implies a role within society and the child will grow to become a certain role). However, the conservative thought is shooting itself in the foot by talking about the "defense of marriage" when divorce exists and the sanctity of the family when single parenthood exists. If it is required that a child have both a mother and father then let us destroy all orphanages, let us take away custody from single parents. A child needs a family, agreed. A child needs role models, agreed. A child needs love, agreed. However, if we believe that a child needs a family in the most fundamental sense of a nucleus of mother, father, child, then we shall be hurting the lives of many children because of our high minded principles and would we not be in violation of our other morals? If a child should not be raised without a mother and father what do we do with the many single mothers (and fathers) and orphans? Do we hold out hope that the orphans will be adopted? Do we hold out hope that the single parent will get remarried? But I thought that twice married is adultery? Or am I interpreting the Bible too literally? I suppose I should go eat my challah, grab a floor length skirt, give up shellfish, switch back to the Friday sabbath, wear a doily when in church while I sit silently listening to a male preacher, and give up cheeseburgers.

I'd rather let gays adopt.

ipod: for what it's worth by the cardigans