That being said, I want to make sure we point out that it wasn’t Gene Robinson who offered up a child for sex. It was a FAN of Gene Robinson who did this. Robinson may have his flaws, but as far as I’ve heard he’s not involved in this particular situation.

The argument I see being advance here, more or less “if gay adoption wasn’t allowed, this wouldn’t have happened” could be used on every characteristic adoptive parents may posess. You could just as easily, after a case of adoptive straight parents abusing their children, say “if straight adoption wasn’t allowed, this wouldn’t have happened,’ or even “if adoption wasn’t allowed period, this wouldn’t have happened. If they were Baptist, you could say “well, if we didn’t allow Baptists to adopt, this wouldn’t happen.” Etc. etc.

As for the vetting process, well, that’s all we have. For every couple of every stripe. Properly done, most of the chaff can be cleared away. But (not surprisingly) people keep their perversions covered up as best they can, all you can do is try. And I promise you, we ferret out quite a few, but I know sometimes something slips by.

As a final, and anecdotal note, in response to Jack Savage’s statement regarding knowing what he sees, The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases I see are perpetrated by straight folks, usually momma’s boyfriend. I draw no conclusions from that fact, other than I can say in my jurisdiction we’re not being overrun by homosexual adoptive abuse. In fact, in 3 years, I have zero in a jurisdiction of 100,000 people. I could have one tomorrow – I’m sure it is happening, if not here, near,

Using the false logic that everyone in the world seems prone to (which is that when someone on the other side does it, it’s reflective of the whole other side), gays are hypocrites because of this. But that really doesn’t make sense.

A black haired man presided over the holocaust. Doesn’t make all black-haired people murderers.

A Christian shot Tiller, that doesn’t make Christians murderers.

A socialist ran the USSR, that doesn’t make all socialists murderers.

A conservative cheated on his wife, that doesn’t make all conservatives adulterers.

A liberal cheated on HIS wife, it doesn’t make all liberals adulterers either.

And a gay man pimped his five-year old son out. Doesn’t mean all gay men will do this, nor does it give any indication that this is more abundant in the gay community than in the heterosexual community, although I’d love to see some actual statistics on that.

I would also love to see a reporter ask Obama the question you outlined.

Parenting requires constant vigilance and discernment.

If you’re going to forbid any couple from adopting, the onus is upon those that would restrict to provide evidence that the group in question — in this scenario, gay couples — is more likely to abuse a child.

We know for certain that children growing up in foster care are adversely affected, so that’s the bar we have to meet in order to justify any type of adoption.

2) Who is playing up Man-Boy love? NAMBLA, obviously, but they have been kicked to the curb by all mainstream gay organizations. They are despicable, for sure.

3)

Not before.

Find other things to discuss.

Mgmt.

I’m not saying it’s exactly 50/50 (few things ever are), but it’s close enough that neither side should be trying to score points on the other.

Because that is the typical crock of crap we hear from lefties time and time and time and time again – which STILL doesn’t make it true.

If the answer is “yes”, then is it worth it? Promoting the “right” of gay males to adopt if molestation is a certain fate for some – not all, but some – of the children they adopt?

As a group, if you were interested in securing adoption rights, particularly the right to adopt little boys, would it not be in your best interest to sort of play down the whole Man-Boy Love thing? Say, in case some guy on a website takes that to mean that the incidence of pedophelia among gay males is higher than that of the general population, and this in and of itself both argues against the “hey, heteros do it too!” and the argument for gay adoption?

Take your time, because your answer is for posterity rather than to make a point in an argument – I have no further interest in responding to you. Plus I am too busy watching the economy your boys are in charge of crumble – much faster than even I anticipated.

If you disagree with my logic, please explain why.

Also, I made a point to avoid the Sanford threads. There is plenty of blame to go around to politicians on the right and left, and toward people in general. I feel sorry for him on a personal level, though certainly what he did wasn’t smart.

The point is that Sanford’s behavior shouldn’t be tagged as indicative of the right, and that Clinton’s shouldn’t be tagged as indicative of the left, and that Lombard’s shouldn’t be tagged as indicative of gays.

How is that inflammatory?

I understand the struggle, and it is the struggle that thinking people undergo – what is best for the children? You and Steve have a certain view, and there is ample evidence to back you up. I look at this incident as validation for my viewpoint, which could be considered extreme. All of us have probably had some personal experience that plays into it and makes it more complicated.

Your points and questions made me think more. No problem with that. Many around here would say it is about time for that – Steve among them.

BTW, if you were not here for the verbal lashing that some of us gave Mark Sanford then stay out of this. Again, I am being nice, Jack Savage will probably dress you down shortly.