Posted by
Doctor Demex on Friday, October 13, 2006 10:29:26 AM
Some public grade schools defiantly (and without evidence) teach
youngsters that homosexual couples are every bit as desirable as
heterosexual couples for rearing children, and that any assertions
otherwise constitute "bigotry" against homosexuals in general and
homosexual couples in particular. But look what happens when the
two assumptions vital to the argument are put next to each other:
1. A father is unnecessary for rearing a well-adjusted child, so a child reared by two mommies will turn out just as well.
2. A mother is unnecessary for rearing a well-adjusted child, so a child reared by two daddies will turn out just as well.
If a father is unnecessary and a mother is unnecessary, then two
fathers must be particularly unnecessary, as must two mothers.
The proponents of same-sex-couple adoption have trapped themselves into
implying that parental figures are altogether unnecessary.
Same-sex couples are "just as good as" heterosexual couples if and only
if both types of couples are equally, and completely, ineffective
rearing children.
Pursuing what little logic remains reveals only two other ways for
society to produce responsible adults, and the absurdity of these
choices is matched only by their undesirability: The first is to
raise children on institutional ranches staffed by androgynous
wranglers. The second is to put the kids out on the street to
fend for themselves.
Does anyone else see the folly of funding a public education system
that subordinates the Three Rs to teaching children that males and
females are functionally equivalent (equally useless, apparently) and
that sex between and among any combination of them is all the same?