In recent years there has been an intensified push across the Anglosphere, (Australia, USA, UK and Canada) to legalize and normalize gay adoption. The moral thrust driving this increasingly successful campaign has been the “right of homosexual couples to parent children”. This blog discusses this insidious gay campaign to normalise what is otherwise regarded as racist, exploitative and emotionally abusive adoptions by introducing into the discourse a so far largely ignored dimension - the rights and best interests of the child.

GAY ADOPTION IS CHILD ABUSE

We are born into a heterosexual world by the sheer fact we are born. This biological truth extends to those babies who are sold or transported into western adoption by brokers and traffickers, and to children positioned in the anglosphere, who are orphaned, abandoned or permanently separated from birth parents. There is no evidence to suggest that orphaned and abandoned babies possess a predilection towards homosexuality and that these same children would thrive more in a homosexual setting than they would in a heterosexual or normalised parenting environment.

Choice or Condition?

Is homosexuality a choice, or a condition? Depending on who is asked the answer could be either. It is not the purpose of this blog to interrogate the nature and cause of homosexuality beyond establishing a number of principles of how children adopted by homosexual couples are forced  into a lifelong ‘contract’ of dubious social, psychological, cultural and moral value.

If homosexuality is a choice then this would imply people choose to practise a homosexual lifestyle in opposition to what the standards of human society and indeed nature dictate. By arguing homosexuality is choice and by extension an entitlement in so-called ‘liberal-democracies’ then this choice can theoretically if not morally be placed alongside the deviant lifestyle choices of bestiality and paedophilia. “I choose to mate with my own gender as I choose to mate with my pet dog” – choice is the operative word or principle here! Would a couple who copulates / mates with a dog be assessed as meeting the eligibility criteria to adopt a child?  Of course not! Then why is the couple who mate intra-gender more entitled to adopt than the couple who mate inter-species? Both counter-biological ‘persuasions’ are about choice.

If homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice then surely commoditized imported babies can also be parcelled out to occultist couples, criminal couples, cult couples, feral couples, porn-star couples, prostitute couples, swinging couples, polygamist families and so on.  Above all other ‘different’ lifestyles, homosexuality has managed to normalise its 'alternative' lifestyle choice to the point of asserting a ‘moral entitlement’ to buy and adopt children.

"She really completes us and the 2 queens across the road are sooo envious"

Alternatively, homosexuality is viewed as a condition, a sexual orientation which the homosexual afflicted person has little or no control over. This point of view includes research claims homosexuality can be genetically explained, that is, one can be born homosexual. Assuming these explanations are valid then homosexuality could be properly classified as a genetic abnormality or a biological disorder. Homosexuality could in fact be understood as a disability, because it is a physiological condition the person has limited or no control over. Mental illness, acquired brain injury, epilepsy, AIDS and cancer all constitute a form of disability. Using then this clinical interpretation, mentally ill couples, invalid couples, paedophile couples and alcoholic couples are equally entitled to barter and adopt babies as much as their genetically dysfunctional homosexual peers.

Choice and condition are at the very minimum spurious claims, argued from the homosexual wannabe parents’ point of view. Introduced here is a different dimension into the ‘discourse’, an aspect so chronically, though understandably overlooked. This constituent being the rights and “best interest” of the child - factors that must assume primacy over all other considerations, including the whim of white middle-class homosexuals to ‘own’ and ‘mother’ a baby.

What about the Rights of the Child

Gay adoption of children constitutes 2 layers of child abuse. Children acquired by homosexuals on home territory are sacrificed to a perverse strain of anglophile political correctness and thereby are denied the opportunity to be placed in normalized (heterosexual or group home) settings. Those children sourced from under-developed countries are in addition to becoming a commodity of a selfish homosexual agenda, are culturally butchered by a new wave of anglo imperialism.  This cultural imperialism places the egocentric, racist, atomized, materialist and deviant culture of the angloshpere above all other cultures, essentially asserting the “west is the best”. Pause for a second if you will, and picture this cultural imperialism reversed where traditional head-hunter tribes in the PNG Highlands adopt white children from downtown Melbourne group homes. Imagine the sanctimonious racist uproar. Envisage further if members of these same tribes were homosexual or dare it be said, Muslim!

  "I want to adopt white orphan babies because they're cute. 

                        You have a problem with this?"

Every child has the right to a normalized, safe and nurturing upbringing. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (section iii Human Rights and the Child) decrees as much. Homosexual adoptions are neither normal nor arguably safe for a child. A child traded into homosexual custody will eventually learn of his deviant situation. Every child everywhere must ultimately contend with a heterosexual world irrespective of the counter dogma and propaganda espoused by gay activists. The world is naturally heterosexual and will remain such no matter how much this reality is defied, denied and usurped by homosexual activists!

Winter is cold and summer is hot. Humanity everywhere bears the responsibility of bringing up their young to best adapt to the natural world in which they are born. Blankets in winter, shade in summer - children nurtured, loved and shaped by heterosexual men and women alike.  Animals everywhere likewise raise their offspring to meet the challenges of nature. Why then are homosexuals exempted from this universal law? Why are we prepared to jeopardise the wellbeing of children already identified as vulnerable and disadvantaged to merely satisfy the ‘desires’ of one deviant or disabled subset of society?

Those children plunged into gay adoption will grow up and discover how ‘special’ they really are. Undoubtedly their gay ‘parents’ will spend countless hours coaching if not brainwashing them into accepting the abnormality of their circumstances. “Instead of 1 you have 2 dads, and when we kiss each other’s mouth it’s because we love each other”. This, the perversion of the natural order of things, is in itself a form of child abuse, where innocent minds are soiled with the unnatural vices of their keepers. The ridicule and awkward moments these children will endure throughout their lives is never spoken of. They will grow up never experiencing a semblance of family normality because the 2 gays around the corner felt incomplete without an imported Korean baby cradled in the spare bedroom. Where’s the fairness in this, the balance? Absolutely none. Babies trafficked from South East Asia into the gay anglosphere have no say for the obvious reason they are infants. Thus this entire dialogue on gay adoptions has been constructed and contrived by the gays themselves.

                                 Yup we'll learn Bub to love us, as we learned Fido to fetch a ball                          

One claim however does offer a skerrick of rationale in defence of gay adoption and that is the provision of food and shelter to children who might otherwise go without. This is a cynical claim at best. If gay parents were to relinquish their adopted children, these children would either be readopted by heterosexuals or raised in group homes managed by heterosexual care givers and or house parents. The percentage of orphaned and trafficked children adopted by homosexuals is minute compared to the vast number of children in State or NGO care. Homosexual adoptions have absolutely nothing to do with the global or indeed local wellbeing of neglected, distressed and abused children. Homosexual adoption is all about the needs and the 'politically correct fabricated entitlement' of white middle-class homosexuals! The entitlement of children to a culturally, sexually and emotionally safe upbringing is completely ignored.

And what of babies imported from poverty-stricken nations. Those most vulnerable of human beings who are exported across the oceans, delivered into homosexual captivity. These same children now face the double injury of being stripped of both their indigenous culture and their masculinity (or femineity as the case may be). This perversity can only occur within a ‘civilization’ riddled with breathtaking hypocrisy where a male looking sideways at an adolescent female will be ‘crucified in the town square’, but his gay neighbour can legally adopt baby boys from all corners of the globe. This is the same damaged culture which glorifies its deviant aka ‘progressive’ practices through its media. The latest celluloid junk disseminated by Hollywood liberals is the pseudo comedy “Modern Family”. It is this particular double-speak media that the ‘legitimacy and normalcy’ of gay adoption is being flushed into the living room. The perverse politically correct message is shameless and one wonders whether the Jewish studio moguls bankrolling such racist claptrap would permit a swap of the Korean baby model with a Jewish one.

Gays adopting Korean babies is cool cause the tv says so 

The other ‘white’ elephant in the room is of course the question whether gay adoptions will distort and indeed corrupt the sexual orientation and development of adoptees. This is another risk factor completely omitted in the ‘debate’, which has become a monotone tale stuck solely on the rights of gays! The primary socializing agent of children has always been parents, where then does this leave children thrust into homosexual adoption. Logically the risk for those children to develop homosexual behaviours is vastly higher than for those children raised in heterosexual environments. Is this an acceptable risk the community [gays, liberals and politicians] is prepared to accept on behalf of voiceless vulnerable children. Those heterosexual liberals supporting homosexual adoption need to ask themselves this: would they leave for a single day their 5 year old boy in the bedroom of 2 gay men? Would it be ok for their son to watch as 2 men either by choice or condition defy nature and tongue kiss the other? Multiply this 1 day to the 5500 days an adopted baby will typically endure in the private domain of homosexuals.

I have no problem with my 5 year old boy being 'parented' by these chaps 

Every competent adult, to the best of their ability, bears the inherent responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of children. This wellbeing includes the sexual, emotional and psychological domains of a child’s development. Normalising delinquency and deviancy to a child is a profound breach of that responsibility. We do not allow our children to smoke cigarettes, nor do we permit children to watch pornographic media. More important though, we consciously do not normalise these behaviours, rather denouncing such activities as abnormal and harmful. We in fact shield our children from detrimental and deviant circumstances. Abnormal circumstances can constitute emotional, moral, social, psychological, cultural, familial, religious, sexual and health dimensions. Homosexuality is abnormal, encompassing the social, sexual, psychological, familial, emotional and cultural aspects of a child’s development. The question remains therefore, why are we unnecessarily exposing children to such abnormal and adverse circumstances? Because white middle-class homosexuals need a filler in their otherwise unfulfilled lives!

Children as Pets

Children are not pets, even if they are sourced from ‘the culturally inferior’ non-English speaking communities of Korea, Africa, China and India. Many “mail-order” babies are in fact transacted as dogs and cats are in the local pet shop. Pets are purchased to meet the needs i.e. companionship and plaything of the buyer. The welfare of the pet purchased is incidental and is only maintained in order to secure the desired qualities and functions of that pet. Crippled pets are rarely if ever bought and imported into suburbia. Likewise disabled homeless children are rarely consciously imported into white middle-class adoption, homosexual or otherwise. This is because adopted children (especially foreign born) as with adopted pets are mainly appropriated to meet the needs of the buyers. This selfish adoption motivator is it is argued much more prevalent throughout homosexual than heterosexual adoptions. Because the homosexual couple are primarily motivated by the factor of boredom mixed with novelty, caked with a warped sense of political correct entitlement. The vast majority of children adopted by homosexuals are "babies to order", and this circumstance reinforces the fact that gay adoption is all about the wants of the "prospective parents".

After the poodle acquisition comes the imported baby 

Experimenting on Children

In the 20^th century orphaned and stolen children detained in Australian government institutions were subjected to medical testing. A barrage of vaccines was tested on these children resulting in ghastly consequences. Many of these victims were disabled and scarred for life. Today no government in the anglosphere would dare propose children in State ‘care’ again be used as guinea pigs for clinical trials. But in the 1950s, 60s and 70s there was little shame in this horror that was perpetuated against our nation’s most vulnerable. To be sure back then many clinicians would have applauded the testing program citing the ‘progressive’ benefits for society at large; this was after all about the needs and interests of the medical fraternity and adult society in general.

The abuse and exploitative parallel between medical testing and gay adoption is remarkable. Both these programs forcibly subject vulnerable impoverished children to harmful experiments. Subjecting abandoned, orphaned and trafficked children to homosexual adoption is to experiment with the child’s sexual, cultural, emotional and psychological wellbeing. This latest experiment against humanity’s most vulnerable has absolutely nothing to do with children’s rights and needs; rather homosexual adoption has everything to do with the ‘best interests’ of the adults.