Forest and trees and the what not…
This is just one of the many reasons why we don’t advocate for homosexual adoption. If studies show increased levels of domestic abuse among these couples then placing children in the environment is not what is best for the child, and there is no evidence that children reduce levels of domestic violence.
Here’s the big issue…
The study finds that bisexual women are more at risk of “experiencing intimate partner violence compared with heterosexual women, lesbians and women who have sex with women.” The report also notes that in 95 percent of the intimate partner violence incidents reported by bisexual women, the “perpetrator was a male intimate partner, indicating that the violence occurred outside a same-sex relationship.”
Note, lesbians and women who do not identify as lesbians, have a lower rate while women who are bi-sexual have a higher rate. But, who are the ones committing the domestic violence? Straight males. As for the males, the report is a bit garbled, but it looks like it is saying that males who identify as gay are still abused by gay, straight, and non-identifying gay males. But, why? Because of psychological duress. We see this, actually, in other population sets as well. We also know that domestic abuse is a diseases often times passed on throughout generations until someone is able to stop the cycle.
So, let us suppose Nathan has a valid point and let us say that we need to exclude adoptions to population sets with high domestic violence rates. Who would it be? Two possibilities arise. First, it is possible we exclude adoption privileges from
straight or non-identifying gay males. Or, we exclude adoption privileges from non-marrieds, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Or, maybe there is a third option… Anyone?
Oh, and Nathan is pretty darn homophobic. There is a huge difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and blinding hating da’ gays. Blind hate reveals something hidden deep inside the person who blindly hates.