I think a lot of you are missing the point. Looks matter. Welcome to our society. And if a picture of a heterosexual couple that looked like white trash that just walked out of the 80’s was depicted in a news article about adopting children, we’d all be thinking “Umm… wow. At least they have parents?” On the other hand, if an attractive, well-off looking couple was depicted, we’d all be thinking “Awww, they look like great parents. <3” So the point of this is not that ugly people make worse parents, it’s about how a journalist can easily manipulate how we feel about an article with simple picture. And the first picture was clearly used to scare people into thinking “OH GOD. THAT POOR CHILD!!”
wrong, wrong, so wrong.
kids deserve to have loving homes and it shouldn’t matter if the couple is gay…just as long as they can provide that loving home. i know plenty of straight married people who have kids AND SHOULDN’T.
and what’s amusing to me is that i thought the couple on the left was an ugly man and an ugly woman…lol.
slightly at a loss…
So looks decides the fate of a child? Because my brother’s third wife was a real dog, though he had shared rights of his daughter.
Plainly said, a persons credentials shouldn’t have to have anything to do with whether they are married to the same gender or not married at all, but rather the ability to give the child a loving home, decent education, and, of course, a PlayStation when they graduate high school.
(OK, maybe not the last one)