This will stir things up.
Here's the thought today – I don't understand the logic of homosexual couples demanding the right to adopt. It strikes me as utterly undermining their other argument that the essential nature of their relationship is, well, natural and normal.
Here's the logic:
- Assumption conceded for the sake of the argument: Homosexual attraction and thus homosexual relationships are perfectly natural and normal (albeit not as common as heterosexual relationships).
- Homosexual relationships are, in their essence, non-reproductive.
- Thus, under assumption 1 and undeniable fact 2 – why the demand of a “right” to children? It is a right utterly alien to the essence of the relationship. To argue for the right is to argue against the essential nature of that relationship.
Nor is it consistent to point to the right of infertile heterosexual couples to adopt. The infertility of the heterosexual couple is recognised as contrary to the nature of that relationship and therefore something to be compensated for. This is an utterly different claim to that made on behalf of homosexual couples.
The bottom line is this – if the homosexual lobby want to argue for the “naturalness” of homosexual relationships based, not least, on their existence – then why are they not prepared to accept the natural outcomes of those relationships (or non-outcomes, as the case may be)?