Last Catholic Adoption Agency in England fights to stay open

[kaid100]

no, I’m describing the same-sex parents. THEY are not comfortable in a main stream setting. THEY need to have carriculums changed to appease their political/cultural needs.

In England, where this Agency does its work, gays are now well-integrated into the main stream. There used to be a law, Section 28 which stated that no-one could “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” There was a vote in Parliament to abolish it, the Conservative opposition voted to retain it. One of their senior spokesman disagreed and voted to abolish, and was forced to leave the party. His replacement as an MP was a Conservative named David Cameron, who criticised the then-PM Tony Blair for being “anti-family” and “wanting to promote homosexuality in schools”

He also criticised the man he replaced, saying that he wasn’t representing the views of those in his constituency. Nearly a decade later, David Cameron was Conservative leader, the senior right-winger in the country, and he apologised for his previous stance, and when one of his senior spokesman said it was acceptable for a Christian B&B owner to refuse to house a gay couple, he publicly disagreed and the spokesmen was demoted soon after. Since he became Prime Minister, Section 28 has not been put back into force.

Since even the Conservative Party has realised there are no votes in gay-bashing, and the other two main parties were already pro-gay rights; it is clear that the mainstream in Britain now encompasses gays, and that no gay would have to “shop around” for a suitable pro-gay school, in the way that a religious person might to find a school which is run by their church.

Your 1950’s example is a strawman. Not worthy of an answer.

No, a strawman is to pretend someone holds a different, distorted stance to the one they do. If I had said that you agreed with segregated schools, that would be a strawman. I made a comparison. Do you feel the comparison is invalid?

 

[SunnaB16]

I still haven’t heard a reason to not allow homosexuals to adopt. You are telling me to “Use my imagination” but it is you claiming they are unsuitable, not me; so it’s up to you to put your reasons forward. Words like “effluent”, “corrupt”, “decadent” are very emotive and descriptive, but they do not take the place of describing the reason why it would be harmful for a gay to adopt. I may list my religion as “none”, but*** I was brought up a Christian so I understand spirituality and its consequences.***

“spirituality and its consequences”
You really dont understand sin and its consequences, do you! If you did, you wouldnt claim “None” as your religion.
Every time we sin, we damage ourselves; we damage others; we damage Nature/Creation (Greens:take note!). Sodomy is a MORTAL sin. So: the consequences of sin.
Ever wondered why the worlds in such turmoil, with so much blood ,n guts? Sin, Sin, and more Sin! What we see is the tip of the iceberg in a spiritual war.
But, of course, you reject all of that; so what`s the point of arguing with you?

You have a choice about your sexuality? Did you choose to be (I presume) straight? Could you choose to stop loving your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend? [delete as applicable] Could you choose to stop being attracted to them? If the answer is “no”, why do you think homosexuals have a choice about it?

No: i didnt choose to be straight; but, thanks be to God, straight is how it is. i have the greatest of sympathy for people who suffer from same sex attraction; but the fact is that SSA is unnatural/disordered. Why do you think were created (or whatever you wish to call it) MALE and FEMALE, each with the appropriate sex organs?

Children who are subjected to two male or two female so-called “parents” are not being raised in a healthy environment; and run a high risk of being emotionally damaged. If you cant see that, the problem lies with you, and theres no point in arguing on about it!
Your rejection of religion is a stumbling block.

Do you seriously think that all major signs of affection between same-sex “spouses” would be confined to “the bedroom”? Men giving each oher a “peck” and calling each other “Love” doesnt strike me as normal! While most children have a mother whos obviously female, and a father whos obviously male, what do these other children have? Surely your imagination can serve here! On one hand; are there two men, one of whom is effeminate: and on the other hand; two women, one of whom is butchy? Which type should each child follow? Dont you think that just maybe, there could be confusion in the child`s mind/emotions; with unfortunate consequences in later adult life? Again: not to mention the spiritual side of it; which you reject.

i dont believe that theres a “gay” gene, as such. The way children are brought up, including tragic events like rape, has a hell of a lot to do with it. Same-sex “parents” won`t make things any better!

By the way, regarding a deeper spiritual explanation:
Theres no such animal as a course titled: "A Complete Guide to Catholic Teachings in One Easy Lesson". In other words: were on different wavelengths; and it`d be impossible to remedy that in a few lines.

 

[kaid100]

“spirituality and its consequences”
You really dont understand sin and its consequences, do you! If you did, you wouldnt claim “None” as your religion.
Every time we sin, we damage ourselves; we damage others; we damage Nature/Creation (Greens:take note!). Sodomy is a MORTAL sin. So: the consequences of sin.
Ever wondered why the worlds in such turmoil, with so much blood ,n guts? Sin, Sin,and more Sin!What we see is the tip of the iceberg in a spiritual war.
But, of course, you reject all of that; so what`s the point of arguing with you?

This thread didn’t start with me saying that you’re not allowed to consider Homosexuality a mortal sin. If you want to think that, that’s fine. We were talking about whether a Catholic Adoption Agency should be allowed to discriminate solely on the basis of Homosexuality, which it is not permitted to do by law. Should lawmakers put the beliefs of some ahead of the rights of others. There is no way to prove whether or not there is such a thing as Mortal Sin, or even if Sin exists at all, any more than you could prove the existence of Karma, thetans or Lares. Lawmakers can’t legislate on that basis, so they have to try and make things as fair for all, which means that sometimes their right to be treated as an equal comes ahead of your right to treat people as different. And I hate to say this, but there would be as much blood ,n’ guts in the world if homosexuals did not exist as if they do. The way to reduce the blood ,n’ guts is to try to live and let live, and accept that sometimes people have their own ways of doing things but that we should try to treat them the same, even if it feels weird to start with.

No: i didnt choose to be straight; but, thanks be to God, straight is how it is. i have the greatest of sympathy for people who suffer from same sex attraction; but the fact is that SSA is unnatural/disordered. Why do you think were created (or whatever you wish to call it) MALE and FEMALE, each with the appropriate sex organs?

For you, straight it is. For them, gay it is. How do I know that they don’t have God to thank for it, too? If you don’t want to use your organs in “that” way that’s fine, but they have other plans and so long as it is behind closed doors, it doesn’t affect you or anyone else, so why does it matter?

Children who are subjected to two male or two female so-called “parents” are not being raised in a healthy environment; and run a high risk of being emotionally damaged. If you cant see that, the problem lies with you, and theres no point in arguing on about it!

They run a high risk of emotional damage do they? Well that should be easy to prove, can you point to a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (not one linked to a church) that would demonstrate that?

Your rejection of religion is a stumbling block.
Do you seriously think that all major signs of affection between same-sex “spouses” would be confined to “the bedroom”? Men giving each oher a “peck” and calling each other “Love” doesn`t strike me as normal!

No, it doesn’t, because you’re not used to it. If you saw it for a while, it wouldn’t seem odd any more.

While most children have a mother whos obviously female, and a father whos obviously male, what do these other children have? Surely your imagination can serve here!
On one hand; are there two men, one of whom is effeminate: and on the other hand; two women, one of whom is butchy? Which type should each child follow? Dont you think that just maybe, there could be confusion in the childs mind/emotions; with unfortunate consequences in later adult life? Again: not to mention the spiritual side of it; which you reject.

Catholic Agencies have happily adopted to single people before, so clearly having one of each gender present wasn’t a requirement. Secondly, not every gay couple sticks to the butch/camp stereotype and not every straight guy acts like Vinnie Jones and not every straight woman acts like Snow White. Most gay people have plenty of straight friends, so they will get to meet and experience a wide range of personalities, not to mention those they’ll meet at School. Even if they do have a camp parent, haven’t you met straight couples where it’s the wife that wears the trousers? Did the Catholic Agencies refuse to adopt to those?

i dont believe that theres a “gay” gene, as such. The way children are brought up, including tragic events like rape, has a hell of a lot to do with it. Same-sex “parents” won`t make things any better!

By the way, regarding a deeper spiritual explanation:
Theres no such animal as a course titled: "A Complete Guide to Catholic Teachings in One Easy Lesson". In other words: were on different wavelengths; and it`d be impossible to remedy that in a few lines.

Yes, we’re on different wavelengths, but the lawmakers have to consider the rights of all, whatever the wavelength, not just the beliefs of some.

 

[LemonAndLime]

On the one hand, I sympathise with the adoption agency. They want to place the children with Catholic parents with Catholic beliefs and values, fair enough. And in an ideal world, I wish it was possible.

Unfortunately in my country we’re very secular. Religion is part of freedom of expression and beliefs, an optional extra. It’s seen as incredibly important in hospitals however (I can personally provide evidence for that), but that’s just about it really. Atheists who don’t know whether Jesus is the son of God or the son of someone called Judas (yes I’ve met someone like that before) get married in a Church.

On the other hand however, we’re really big on the whole “no discrimination thing”. Us Brits have had to put up with being “invaded” for thousands of years by different cultures etc, so we’re really keen on not offending anyone. It’s part of our culture. Therefore, we don’t want to offend the Catholics or the homosexuals. BUT as far as the law is concerned, the Church is seperate from State. But not to the extent that it is seperate from the law. I’m sure though that when that adoption agency is forced to, any homosexual couple trying to adopt through them will have a tough time trying to prove it in court.

Also - why would an intelligent homosexual couple go to a Catholic adoption agency anyway? I don’t know a lot about this case, are they planning to fuse that agency with others?

 

[Aramis]

First of all, they wouldn’t be witness to a sexual relationship, that would be behind closed doors as with heterosexual parents. You define having same-sex parents as child abuse, but how exactly would it damage the child? All you have is words. You call it perverted or spiritual child abuse, but can you specify how a child with same-sex parents would “end up worse”? A raped child will have trust issues, likelihood of relationship problems and damage to internal organs, amongst other things. What specific ailments will a child with same-sex parents have?

I was, as a child, VERY aware of when my parents were having sex. Between the locked bedroom door, and the noise…

 

[kaid100]

I was, as a child, VERY aware of when my parents were having sex. Between the locked bedroom door, and the noise…

Out of interest, did you “end up worse” for hearing them?

 

[Aramis]

Out of interest, did you “end up worse” for hearing them?

No. But they were heterosexual. I never came to see buggery as natural.

 

[kaid100]

No. But they were heterosexual. I never came to see buggery as natural.

From a child’s point of view, why is overhearing a straight couple having sex any better or worse that overhearing a gay couple? Ideally, they wouldn’t overhear either and couples are better to keep it down if there is a child in the house, but if your response is “Because same-sex intercourse is a sin” then you are using a judgement based on your religion. You are entitled to that belief, but the lawmakers have to take all positions into account and try to ensure all people are treated as fairly as possible. If your response is “because they might then think same-sex intercourse is acceptable” then be aware that for the majority of people in the country today, it is acceptable so long as it is between consenting adults.

Let me ask you something else, if the idea of a child overhearing their gay parents having sex is the primary thing worrying you, would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to adopt if they have soundproofed walls, and a lock on their bedroom door?

 

[NE_Catholic]

In England, where this Agency does its work, gays are now well-integrated into the main stream. There used to be a law, Section 28 which stated that no-one could “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” There was a vote in Parliament to abolish it, the Conservative opposition voted to retain it. One of their senior spokesman disagreed and voted to abolish, and was forced to leave the party. His replacement as an MP was a Conservative named David Cameron, who criticised the then-PM Tony Blair for being “anti-family” and “wanting to promote homosexuality in schools”

It is not a question of “intergration” in New England, but rather a question of “comfort” for the parents. I feel, and am probably right, children of gay parents can attend any public school in New England with little torment. Yes, they’ll be the occasional harrassment, not quite the torment you are probably imagining. No, it’s the parents who want to be in a “gay” friendly enviorment where they feel alternative views will not only be accepted but encouraged. They want alternative lifestyles to be pu front and center into the public forum. Is that ok? Well, for me, no.

No, a strawman is to pretend someone holds a different, distorted stance to the one they do. If I had said that you agreed with segregated schools, that would be a strawman. I made a comparison. Do you feel the comparison is invalid?

It is a strawman. Blacks are outwardly visable as black. How can you tell whether or not someone has gay parents?

 

[kaid100]

It is not a question of “intergration” in New England, but rather a question of “comfort” for the parents. I feel, and am probably right, children of gay parents can attend any public school in New England with little torment. Yes, they’ll be the occasional harrassment, not quite the torment you are probably imagining. No, it’s the parents who want to be in a “gay” friendly enviorment where they feel alternative views will not only be accepted but encouraged. They want alternative lifestyles to be pu front and center into the public forum. Is that ok? Well, for me, no.

Well, I find it unlikely that gay parents would want their children to be part of specialist schools, I’m sure they would much rather be part of the mainstream. I’ll say again, that many religious parents will “shop around” for schools that are run by their own church, so even if it is true that gays would do the same thing, why is it right for religious people but wrong for gay people? Also, the phenomenon of gay people shopping for pro-gay schools is not one that is particularly prevalent here in England, if only because very few schools would be anti-gay (only church schools really, and even then C of E schools would probably not be anti-gay)

It is a strawman. Blacks are outwardly visable as black. How can you tell whether or not someone has gay parents?

No, it’s definitely a comparison not a strawman.
I don’t follow, why does whether “minority status” is outwardly visible affect whether it is ok to shop around for a school?

 

[Aramis]

Let me ask you something else, if the idea of a child overhearing their gay parents having sex is the primary thing worrying you, would it be acceptable to you for a gay couple to adopt if they have soundproofed walls, and a lock on their bedroom door?

Once they get to reproductive ed, they will realize what they have been hearing is in fact buggery.

They will then either accept it as normal, or will reject it as unnatural.

And the children of homosexual parents that I’ve known have all been traumatized when they came to the realization that their parents routinely engaged in “gay sex,” and have all been rather promiscuous themselves. So, yes, it seems to have damaged them, whether or not they were aware of their parents’ orientation as children.

Everyone is aware of the “adoption trauma”… that point where a child who was adopted before awareness comes to realize that their adoptive parent is not their biological parent. It’s a trauma. A gay couple raising a child is guaranteed to have that trauma at the point reproductive education is received. At least one of the two daddies or two mommies “isn’t really my parent.” And then, in those cases, the accusations of lies… it’s toxic. Especially since it usually occurs about the same time the child realizes that that same parent is also not legally their parent, either…

One child I’ve worked with came to the realization that “Mommy and Daddy just celebrated 8 years together, and I’m 10, and they met a year before they got married… who is my real daddy?” The parents were heterosexual, and the child was traumatized by the realization that Daddy wasn’t the sperm donor.

I really don’t care if Joe and Steve want to bugger each other where I neither hear nor see it… but allowing them to adopt exposes them to higher risk of domestic violence exposure, less long term stability, and higher chances of parental promiscuity, all of which can warp their love-map.

It’s about protecting children.

 

[estesbob]

First of all, they wouldn’t be witness to a sexual relationship, that would be behind closed doors as with heterosexual parents. You define having same-sex parents as child abuse, but how exactly would it damage the child? All you have is words. You call it perverted or spiritual child abuse, but can you specify how a child with same-sex parents would “end up worse”? A raped child will have trust issues, likelihood of relationship problems and damage to internal organs, amongst other things. What specific ailments will a child with same-sex parents have?

Since no one has suggested that raping a child is a good thing why don’t we dispose of that canard and move on to the topic at hand

There are plenty of adoption agencies that have no problem placing children with people who engage in homosexual behavior. Why should the Church be forced to either shut down its adoption agencies or cave into the secular societies demands?

 

[kaid100]

Since no one has suggested that raping a child is a good thing why don’t we dispose of that canard and move on to the topic at hand

Homosexual parents adopting children had been described as “child abuse”, a serious accusation. I am asking what specific ailments would result of having homosexual parents, and for comparison I described possible ailments of being raped, which is an example of child abuse. My line of reasoning, which I hold to, is that there are no “ailments” of having homosexual parents, and therefore no reason to automatically reject every homosexual adopter.

There are plenty of adoption agencies that have no problem placing children with people who engage in homosexual behavior. Why should the Church be forced to either shut down its adoption agencies or cave into the secular societies demands?

Because the lawmakers have decided to place the rights of some ahead of the beliefs of others. It really is that simple.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Well, I find it unlikely that gay parents would want their children to be part of specialist schools, I’m sure they would much rather be part of the mainstream. I’ll say again, that many religious parents will “shop around” for schools that are run by their own church, so even if it is true that gays would do the same thing, why is it right for religious people but wrong for gay people? Also, the phenomenon of gay people shopping for pro-gay schools is not one that is particularly prevalent here in England, if only because very few schools would be anti-gay (only church schools really, and even then C of E schools would probably not be anti-gay)

Quite the opposite here. Gay couples shop around for school/communities that teach and condone alternave lifestyles. Difference between tham and religious schools is that the religious schools are private and the others public. You see the difference?

No, it’s definitely a comparison not a strawman.
I don’t follow, why does whether “minority status” is outwardly visible affect whether it is ok to shop around for a school?

you give gays minority status? Sexual preference? I like redheads, am I a minority?

 

[estesbob]

Homosexual parents adopting children had been described as “child abuse”, a serious accusation. I am asking what specific ailments would result of having homosexual parents, and for comparison I described possible ailments of being raped, which is an example of child abuse. My line of reasoning, which I hold to, is that there are no “ailments” of having homosexual parents, and therefore no reason to automatically reject every homosexual adopter.

Your opinion that there are no elements of having homosexual parents is just that-an opinion The church believes that children are best raised by a married man and woman in a monogamous relationship in religious homes. Since nobody is forcing people to place their children with Catholic services for adoption why should there be any complaint about any restrictions as to who they want to place the children with?Appears to me that the attack on the church’s adoption policy is based on nothing more the religious bigotry

Because the lawmakers have decided to place the rights of some ahead of the beliefs of others. It really is that simple.

It is interesting how you claim the beleif that there is nothing wrong with homosexual beahvior is a right but failed to extend the same right to those who disagree with you.

 

[kaid100]

Your opinion that there are no elements of having homosexual parents is just that-an opinion The church believes that children are best raised by a married man and woman in a monogamous relationship in religious homes. Since nobody is forcing people to place their children with Catholic services for adoption why should there be any complaint about any restrictions as to who they want to place the children with?Appears to me that the attack on the church’s adoption policy is based on nothing more the religious bigotry

The Church is entitled to believe that a heterosexual couple is better, what it isn’t allowed to do by this law is bar all homosexuals from adopting, simply based on their sexuality. You ask why should there be a complaint about the restrictions? Because the lawmakers decided that sexuality is not a reason in itself to discriminate for adoption or for any other service, any more than catholic agencies or anyone else could discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender.

It is interesting how you claim the beleif that there is nothing wrong with homosexual beahvior is a right but failed to extend the same right to those who disagree with you.

You do have a right to believe homosexuality is wrong, you just aren’t allowed to withhold a service such as adoption because of it. Just as a court in America once ruled that Mormons were entitled to believe that polygamy is acceptable, they just weren’t allowed to act on it and practice as such.
Incidentally, I think you may have misunderstood my last point. I was saying that the lawmakers have put the right of gays to be treated equally ahead of the right of Catholics to believe homosexuality is wrong. It is the question of how to balance those two “rights” that really this general debate boils down to.

 

[kaid100]

Quite the opposite here. Gay couples shop around for school/communities that teach and condone alternave lifestyles. Difference between tham and religious schools is that the religious schools are private and the others public. You see the difference?

Remember, we are talking about the situation in England, this is an Catholic Agency in England, where Church schools along with secular schools get public funding.

you give gays minority status? Sexual preference? I like redheads, am I a minority?

Yes, most people consider Gays a minority. In terms of hair colour, I think actually generally people look at the person under the hair, after all hair colour can be changed frequently at only a small cost.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Yes, most people consider Gays a minority. In terms of hair colour, I think actually generally people look at the person under the hair, after all hair colour can be changed frequently at only a small cost.

You can tell if someone is gay? How? Please tell me how you know someone is gay.

 

[SunnaB16]

This thread didn’t start with me saying that you’re not allowed to consider Homosexuality a mortal sin. If you want to think that, that’s fine.

We`ve all been given the gift of free will. We have to be prepared to accept the consequences of how we exercise it.

We were talking about whether a Catholic Adoption Agency should be allowed to discriminate solely on the basis of Homosexuality, which it is not permitted to do by law. Should lawmakers put the beliefs of some ahead of the rights of others?

Some of us have the conviction that same-sex unions have NO RIGHT to “adopt” children. FULL STOP! Our consciences are formed by heeding the Natural Law and the Wisdom of Christ`s Holy Spirit-guided Church.

The first step was to deny the rights of the unborn under a certain age…

There is no way to prove whether or not there is such a thing as Mortal Sin, or even if Sin exists at all, any more than you could prove the existence of Karma, thetans or Lares.

That`s your opinion, due to an intellect damaged in the spiritual realm by lack of Supernatural Life.

Lawmakers can’t legislate on that basis, so they have to try and make things as fair for all, which means that sometimes their right to be treated as an equal comes ahead of your right to treat people as different. And I hate to say this, but there would be as much blood ,n’ guts in the world if homosexuals did not exist as if they do. The way to reduce the blood ,n’ guts is to try to live and let live, and accept that sometimes people have their own ways of doing things but that we should try to treat them the same, even if it feels weird to start with.

And, i hate to say this, but; youre fooling yourself, for reasons already stated. Anyway, one day youll learn the truth; and, for your sake, i hope you have time to repent of your blindness.

For you, straight it is. For them, gay it is. How do I know that they don’t have God to thank for it, too? If you don’t want to use your organs in “that” way that’s fine, but they have other plans and so long as it is behind closed doors, it doesn’t affect you or anyone else, so why does it matter?

Yeah?
Again: your total rejection of the spiritual, and the consequences of sin.

They run a high risk of emotional damage do they? Well that should be easy to prove, can you point to a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (not one linked to a church) that would demonstrate that?

There was no point in asking you to use your imagination, was there! Obviously, in this area at least, you dont have one. The evidence will come......if it hasnt already.

No, it doesn’t, because you’re not used to it. If you saw it for a while, it wouldn’t seem odd any more.

***Like hell it wouldnt!!!*** ive no intention of being sanitised/desensitised/brainwashed into accepting sexual depravity.
It seems that you`ve been deceived that way.

Catholic Agencies have happily adopted to single people before, so clearly having one of each gender present wasn’t a requirement. Secondly, not every gay couple sticks to the butch/camp stereotype and not every straight guy acts like Vinnie Jones and not every straight woman acts like Snow White. Most gay people have plenty of straight friends, so they will get to meet and experience a wide range of personalities, not to mention those they’ll meet at School. Even if they do have a camp parent, haven’t you met straight couples where it’s the wife that wears the trousers? Did the Catholic Agencies refuse to adopt to those?

Again: identity confusion for the victims of this er…right to adopt.

Yes, we’re on different wavelengths, but the lawmakers have to consider the rights of all, whatever the wavelength, not just the beliefs of some.

The rights of all includes the rights of children to a healthy God-willed upbringing!

If you think its quite OK for the world to degenerate into a global Sodom and Gomorrah, thats your affair. The sickening part of it is that the rest of us have to suffer the physical and spiritual consequences of the resulting sin and depravity.

God will not be mocked!!!
Eventually, therell be retribution......for our sake. Thats why (for example) Assyria overran the northern kingdom of Israel; and Babylon overran the southern kingdom of Judaea. To shake `em out of their apostasy.

Again, though, you reject all of that; dont you. Its a case of “Eat, drink, and be merry…”.
“Get what you can get out this life, mate, because thats probably all youll get.”
“Nomero uno!”
The cult of SELF!
No clearly defined boundaries.
No moral absolutes; just whatever “the mob” decides today. Tomorrow, for a different “mob” or vocal pressure group, itll be different. The day after tomorrow...... And you think thats perfectly OK.

Get hold of some decent literature on Moral Theology.
As i said earlier, you cant learn the Truth in only a few lines of print. Its a long, hard slog, but worth it in the end.

 

[LemonAndLime]

…and inflicting same sex “parents” on defenceless children is child abuse.

At least the children sacrificed to Moloch died/die young (i`m including abortion victims).
What sorts of twisted and tormented lives will these latest victims endure?
The Father of lies has won another battle.

You could argue that raising a child in a religion (about which they have no choice about) is child abuse, by the same logic. You are raising a child in a lifestyle which they cannot choose.

Same for raising them in a country which they did no choose, they were defenceless, they couldn’t fight the decision to be raised in say, the USA.

Same for their name too. Or you could say its child abuse that children are placed with single parents because they’re not getting the support of a happily married couple.

Be careful what you say, especially when you insult the victims of real child abuse by associating adoption by single-sex parents with sexual abuse!.