In the course of my business day, I had a meeting with a man concerning rental space. He had a sparkling personality, seemed like a good guy to do business with. Aside from that it was clear that he was "queer as a three dollar bill"

Well, today, this guy kept wanting to mention his 'son'. I saw a photo of an asian boy, and thought, "maybe he's not gay after all. Soundsl like he's married, maybe an asian woman'.

Then he told me that he and his 'partner' adopted the boy through a foreign adoption agency last year, and that they're all moving to a 'more secluded location' in the country a few hours drive west of the city. So he'll be turning over control of the building to a proxy.

As I left, this bugged me. Is there anything weird about two gay males adopting a same sex child?

But then I felt guilty. 'Am I homophobic? After all, the court had to rule on it. So it surely must be okay'.

But...because of my exposure to gays for decades throught the arts, I know things. I used to believe the politically correct things about them---that 'they're born that way'. or, "it's just like heterosexuality, only they prefer the same sex'

But what I've seen going on in real life over the years eventually brought me to the conclusions that gays are invariably made from incest and pedophilia with adult gays. And that it's not like heterosexuality at all. For one thing, they're all sex addicts. The 'couples' I've known, every one of them, live an orgiastic lifestyle. I know, because gays can't help flaunting their lifestyle. They're obsessed with it.

But how can I be right? The courts obviously let gays and lesbians adopt all the time now. They would investigate, right?

I had to research this. Turns out, there was a ground breaking 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the sodomy case of Lawrence vs. Texas. Probably nobody has ever heard of it except lawyers specializing in sex offenses, but it is a key shift in our social paradigm. Justice Scalia (dissenting), wrote:

This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. (see Scalia's full comment below.)

Check it out.

Lawrence v. Texas
In June 2003, the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional as applied to ?adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home? (2003 U.S. LEXIS 5013, at *11). In so holding, the Court extended the ?right of privacy? (LEXIS 5013, at *12, which cannot be found in the text of the Constitution, to a sexual behavior, sodomy, which has been a crime for centuries and that in 1986 was found by the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), to be unprotected by the Constitution.

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement/LawrenceVTexas.htm

This decision effectively makes it illegal for a judge to even question the 'morality' of an adult. This ruling applies ex post facto to adoption cases.

I suppose that a registered pedophile probably can't adopt. But in essence ....(read Justice Scalia's dissent),

In a justifiably angry dissent, Justice Scalia wrote (LEXIS 5013, at *71-72):

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are ?immoral and unacceptable,? (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986). The same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If?the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational basis review.

Such is life in the big city.