I thought this was a fairly interesting conversation. You have a gay woman who believes in gay adoption vs a man who believes that the gay lifestyle is a sin and doesn’t please God. Wow, I wonder how this will end?
Here’s my problem. Huck is a politician and therefore he has to compromise his beliefs. He isn’t going to call homosexuality a sin in public for fear of alienating a whole people group from voting for him. And no, I’m not talking about gay voters, I’m talking about those who are sensitive to the issue who would rule him out if they knew how he really felt. So he plays it safe, which gets him into trouble in this debate.
Rosie puts him between a rock and a hard place and does so effectively. Either he wants children to stay as wards of the state instead of being loved by a gay couple, or he relents and agrees that a gay mother and father…er…mother and mother, at least in Rosie’s circumstance, is better than getting no love from the state. And he ends up trying to do neither and sounding rather weak.
My personal feeling is that the comparison is wrong. To say that it is either gay or not-at-all is silly. Just because a kid is a ward of the state today, doesn’t mean an ‘ideal’ couple won’t come along tomorrow. But even still, the real argument is whether it is right or wrong. I would contend that it fosters a willful sinful lifestyle that I can’t condone, and isn’t righteous in the eyes of God. At which point she probably would have been so offended that she’d have would’ve stopped the interview. But it’s as simple as that for me. I have no studies that say one way or the other on how it affects a child, although I can imagine how it might.
Knowing how God created our relationships, it would be impossible for me to ever condone gay adoption or gay marriage for that matter. Or anything gay to be honest.