First, I wasn't going to reply, because I -am- an asshole.
Second, I generally ignore any message that has any form of God in it that doesn't suffix with Dammit, preferably with additional fun words.
Third, I know that the whole adopted thing very personally, though I myself wasn't technically adopted, but I have to do deal with 'biological' parentage issues and don't want that to sway my response.
So, with those things in mind, I would like to point out that
A) While I think his intent may have been in a positive manner, the obliviousness of science vs religion seems to have completely bypassed him. You are not allowed to use both, period.
B) You're upset over the as God intended, based on your personal views of 'religion', but completely missed the wonderful anti-gay remark prefixing it, even though his snark was a quantification of the statement in parenthesis. I find that a double religious fubar, and deserving of not only a kick in the face, but only after prying his head out of his ass with a crowbar.
C) It's a cop-out to claim that he or anyone could understand what situation and conditions being given up for adoption may have instilled. What happens if the child was removed because of social services coming up with some bogus reason to place the child elsewhere? There are too many variables in that statement that the mother could not have given him the 'same'.
D) nature vs. nurture, here we go again... you have the best genes in the world, and a shitty environment that causes you be a rapist and murder. You can have the worst genes and a great environment and end up being Stephen Hawking. Rinse, mix thoroughly, Repeat.
I'm glad he feels that adopted children need to be raised in an xtian marriage... but that doesn't explain the success (and failure) of single parenting... nor the success (and failure) of [xtian] marriages. Nor, does it take into account what the effect is on the [adopted] child[ren].
no subject
Second, I generally ignore any message that has any form of God in it that doesn't suffix with Dammit, preferably with additional fun words.
Third, I know that the whole adopted thing very personally, though I myself wasn't technically adopted, but I have to do deal with 'biological' parentage issues and don't want that to sway my response.
So, with those things in mind, I would like to point out that
A) While I think his intent may have been in a positive manner, the obliviousness of science vs religion seems to have completely bypassed him. You are not allowed to use both, period.
B) You're upset over the as God intended, based on your personal views of 'religion', but completely missed the wonderful anti-gay remark prefixing it, even though his snark was a quantification of the statement in parenthesis. I find that a double religious fubar, and deserving of not only a kick in the face, but only after prying his head out of his ass with a crowbar.
C) It's a cop-out to claim that he or anyone could understand what situation and conditions being given up for adoption may have instilled. What happens if the child was removed because of social services coming up with some bogus reason to place the child elsewhere? There are too many variables in that statement that the mother could not have given him the 'same'.
D) nature vs. nurture, here we go again... you have the best genes in the world, and a shitty environment that causes you be a rapist and murder. You can have the worst genes and a great environment and end up being Stephen Hawking. Rinse, mix thoroughly, Repeat.
I'm glad he feels that adopted children need to be raised in an xtian marriage... but that doesn't explain the success (and failure) of single parenting... nor the success (and failure) of [xtian] marriages. Nor, does it take into account what the effect is on the [adopted] child[ren].
so... EPIC FAIL on his part, imho.