Homosexual's right to adopt the order of the Phoenix.

In the car today, while driving back from yesterdays wedding, people on the radio were talking about whether or not homosexuals should be able to adopt children. Should I address this issue? I'm not sure it's of any relevance, but I kind of have nothing else on the agenda, anyway.

Naturally, I am pro homo-adoption. Anyone who is against it is simple fighting a lost cause, so I just jumped on the winning team. While I'm pro homo-adoption, I care a lot less about homosexual people's right to adopt children. There's a distinct difference, and that difference is the reason why they haven't won this debate yet. Take the guy on the radio, for instance. He was trying to evoke sympathy by arguing that he should have the same rights as everyone else in this issue. I was thinking: "I don't know you. I don't give a shit if you get less French fries than everyone else at McDonald's. Bu-fucking-hu." I'm not pro homo-adoption because The Village People should have the same rights as I. I'm pro homo-adoption because every kid in the world deserves to get the same chance that I got, regardless of whether your parents end up being the Volvo-driving, emotionally handicapped "mr & mrs Smith", or if it's George Michael, Anthony and their little Johnsons.

Of course, there are many arguments that say homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt. 80% of those arguments are stupid. And the best part is that the main arguments are the ones that make the least sense.

A. It's unnatural: Can't we all agree on the fact that human beings have evolved too far for us to try and keep it "natural"? If this argument is to work, we might as well abolish things like airplanes. I mean, if it was "natural" for mankind to fly, we would probably have wings. The same thing goes for photoshop, medicine, and those kind of shoes that have wheels on them. You know what, I'm convinced. Let's just abolish everything that makes our lives easier.


B. The suicide rate for those children would be high: In China, people can only have one child. If the first child is a girl, sometimes people kill it, just because boys are more profitable. I'm sure all the first-born girls of China would be thrilled about ever having the opportunity to actually do the deed herself.

C. The kid will be bullied at school: At least he's going to school, isn't he?

D. If you disregard the monetary side of things, the child would be happier with his family: You can't just disregard the reason why the world is spinning. Money is everything, especially to people who don't have any. Trying to disregard the factor of money in this issue is beyond ridiculous. I've said it before, it would be like me saying: "Okay, I think I'm going to climb the stairs onto the roof of my building, and then jump. If I just disregard GRAVITY, I should be fine."

There are a number of stupid arguments for why it wouldn't work, but I'm sure you all have better things to do than reading my thoughts on these kind of things.

// R

p.s I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. A pathetic movie, to say the least. The guy who plays Dumbledore ruins everything. I'll write more about that tomorrow. I'm very tired, and I'm going to sleep.