Adoption - digg this
The headline "Do 'Gay Adoption' Opponents Oppose 'Obese Adoption'?" practically screamed from my feed reader this morning. I'm not particularly against homosexuals adopting children. Provided they're put under the same scrutiny that heterosexual parents are I can't see the harm. I understand how some Christians may think that an environment without both a father and a mother may be at least less than ideal and at most harmful, but this raises an interesting question. If you as a Christian are opposed to the adoption of a child by a homosexual single or couple based on the grounds that they are living a "sinful" lifestyle, then what about gluttons? What about non-Christians who are living a heterosexual monogamous, but unmarried life? The possibilities are endless. And if your basis is that the sinful life may be harmful to the child, what about the beam in your own eye?
If none of these things form the basis of your opposition to "gay adoption" and instead you think that there is something simply inherently unhealthy psychologically (too many y's) about it then what about this decision? The judge ruled that the five hundred pound trucker would be unfit because of his weight. Is it legitimate to "take heath concerns such as this into consideration"? Perhaps so. I mean you don't want to allow someone who is terminally ill to adopt. And this gentleman is more likely to die early due to his weight. There is also the question of mobility and other things that the article raises.
For me this is the real kicker though;
Stocklaufer adopted another son seven years ago when he weighed about the same he does now. That adoption was approved by the same judge who ruled against him this week. Stocklaufer and his wife said they plan to appeal the judge's decision.Do they just roll a six sider to decide these things? I'm beginning to think so.
Here's the thing. There are a lot of kids out there that need a loving home. If someone can provide that home and prove that they aren't criminals, molesters, or Repub generally bad role models then why can't they adopt? No one knows when you might get hit by a bus. And with childhood obesity being a huge problem even for "natural" parents and their kids, unless we're ready to take those kids away, how can we say that this man and his wife can't adopt?













Total Number of Comments: 1
Nice crossout there.
What about welfare families who turn up having six, seven, or even more kids? Are the Chinese maybe onto something with their controlled-birthrate rule? I personally think two is the optimal number at about 4-6 years apart, but that's just because it's worked out (astoundingly) well for myself and my own brother. Certain (read: most) sci-fi and future-fiction works have at least a form of licensing for procreation, is that the way we are headed, or should be?
I think the number of really bad heterosexual couples having kids is the number we should really be focusing on. I don't see the gay couples overtaking them anytime soon...and if they did, kids may be in better shape. Or at least they might not have their underwear sticking out of the top of their pants when they go to school in the 'burbs.