One of the featured xangas this week is on the topic of homosexual adoption. That blog entry is an example of a brilliantly put together persuasive argument. Not that it was at all factual, no it was way off really. Overstating it conclusions, using selective stats from other works, works that were also promoting an agenda. The actual research used was heavily cherry picked from some very weak studies. Make your point, and back it up with one study. Then make another point and back it up with a different study. And ignore the fact that the two studies disagree with each other on the first and second points. The person writing the featured article, did not do this. She used information from an article that did it for her.
But it was not the effort at using research, that made it a brilliant work. No that just gave it a hit of factual data to back itself up. No the story line was an emotional one. It was an emotional argument, that made anyone pointing out factual flaws appear to be heartless. That story line made you want to be a good person, agree with those 'facts" and not look into them. I am not complaining, I only wish I had the ability to write so persuasively. I certainly would do it if I could.
My position on that subject was that homosexual couples, while not ideal, were a better choice than no family what so ever. They should be utilized were traditional families were not available. That rather liberal point of view was soundly disagreed with by some people claiming that homosexual parents were “supper parents”, better than all others. I am not joking.
So what do you think, are adoptions a good place for social experiments at redefining families? Or should we put children in the best and most traditional homes possible? As they have the best and longest track record.
Chatboard (36)