Steve Chapman Finds A Nut

He’s gonna join Kathleen Parker on Wingnut Exile Island if he keeps this up:

Consider the implications of the policy in this case. It would mean
removing the children from the home in which they have been raised—”one
of the most caring and nurturing placements” the guardian has ever
seen. It would mean putting them through the trauma, once again, of
being uprooted and placed with complete strangers. And because of the
difficulty of placing kids their age, the child enrichment center said,
it could mean the brothers would be permanently separated from each

And for what? Solely to shield them from the supposed
perils of gay parents. Gays are treated as more dangerous than felons,
drug offenders and known child abusers—none of whom is categorically
barred from adopting.

As it happens, those dangers are mostly
imaginary. According to evidence cited by the judge, gays are slightly
more likely than heterosexuals to suffer psychiatric problems, engage
in substance abuse and smoke, but so are lots of other groups that are
allowed to adopt. The American Psychological Association says it finds
no difference between the parenting of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

But Steve! Traditional marriage! God and Adam and Eve and Steve! Noooooo! They’ll be marrying you to your box turtle next!

Still, he manages to point out he’s only in favor of giving kids to a couple of dudes because there’s no way around it:

Would orphaned and abandoned children be better off if every one of
them could be raised by stable, loving, heterosexual couples? Possibly.
But that’s not an option.


Hat tip to AB.


One thought on “Steve Chapman Finds A Nut

  1. And related but slightly off topic, TP reported yesterday that the head of the federal Office of Personnel Managment both a) opposed granting benefits to homosexual partners on the basis that this could be abused and b) said he didn’t know of any federal employee who had expressed an interest in this.
    Obviously, he’s already reduced his argument to an absurd extreme (that none of the Fed employees are interested – and the fed is one of the largest employers on earth). And I thought you were supposed to disprove your opponent by reducing YOUR OPPONENT’s Argument to the absurd.
    But the more I think about it, wouldn’t the fact that none of the countless federal employees have expressed interest in benefits to gay partners – wouldn’t that, in and of itself, point to a hostile environment and/or employment discrimination? Aren’t the percent of homosexuals estimated somewhere around 10 to 20% of the population. And none of these work for the federal govt?

Comments are closed.