At least apparently. I accidentally discovered this when I negatively remarked on my website that Rep. Paul Ryan now supports gay couples being allowed to adopt children. It amazed me how many conservatives came to Ryan’s defense. And not just that, but how many did not even try to hide behind the illusion of mere excuse-making for Ryan, but expressed openly their explicit agreement with him.
One of the arguments made—again, these are conservatives—was that if you are pro-life, you must absolutely support gays adopting (“[A]nyone who is pro-life had better be pro-adoption [source]”; “[I]f you’re pro-life, you need to be pro-adoption [source]”). (Note the sleight-of-hand: being pro-gay-adoption has now become simply “pro-adoption.” Again, these are conservatives.)
Since abortion helps the pro-life cause, they argue, we should support anybody’s desire to adopt. Using this very same argument, it is not hard to arrive at the position that since “anybody” includes everybody, pro-lifers should support adoption even by ex-convicts and the criminally insane. Somehow, to be anti-adoption for certain people is to be anti-life for all.
These conservative backers of homosexual adoption are hypocrites. They’re young, mostly, and have been tainted by the pervasive liberalism in everyday culture, but that does not excuse their lack of consistency. If gay adoption is good for the pro-life cause, then so is gay “marriage.” Households led by married couples generally raise much more emotionally stable children than those led by unmarried couples. To remain intellectually consistent, these conservatives who back gay adoption must also back gay “marriage.”
And surely these conservative gay-adoption supporters believe birth control should be taxpayer-funded. After all, wouldn’t they rather a woman not get pregnant if she doesn’t want to, rather than the woman becoming a mother and then terminating the life of her unborn baby?
Another argument I’ve been given: “[P]ro-life people should support babies being adopted by those who can provide loving and stable homes, and gay couples certainly fall into that category [source].”
Gays can be loving, certainly, and most of them do lead financially stable lives, being that many earn a high income, but there is nothing stable emotionally in a gay household. Gays are gay because of a mental instability that they themselves have or had at one point. The default emotional state in a gay household is that of instability. This is not to dehumanize gays or to say they are all bad people, but to state a general fact.
And we do not have to rely only on logic to conclude that a father and a mother, or more precisely a mom and a dad, can more ably and consistently rear well-balanced children, for this can be observed in the natural world. Or do we believe that it was only happenstance that God (or Nature, if you prefer) ordained that children may be born only from a male-female couple?
A study published in the journal Social Science Research found that “When compared with outcomes for children raised by an ‘intact biological family’ (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures.” I highly recommend reading the rest of the study’s findings. The details are much more troubling than that summary.
One of my readers noted that Paul Ryan’s support of gay adoption puts him in closer alignment with the general public. This is true. Our society, as all others of the past, is ever drifting leftward. It’s just disheartening to know that my fellow young conservatives are drifting with it.