[JustSayNoToNannies]

Previous cultures didn’t need teams of social scientists to tell them whether or not orphaning a child is bad for him. They took it for granted that orphans were worse off than children born to a father and mother known to them. But this culture, in its vast wisdom, has “studied” the question and concluded that a deliberate policy of depriving children of mothers and fathers is wonderful for them. The experience is “equal” to all other experiences, we’re told. Two fathers or two mothers are just as good as a mother and a father.

One wonders how many of these children plucked from adoption homes or “assisted reproduction” labs and placed in the arms of gay couples will agree. What would once have been called child abuse is now considered the height of enlightenment. This has to be one of the first cultures in history to take outright pride in a planned policy of orphaning children

Am I reading this wrong, or is the author postulating an equivalence between being an orphan and being raised by a same-sex couple?

[The_Reader_David]

On balance, leaving aside instances where the biological parents are too incompetent (whether physically, intellectually, spiritually or morally) to raise their children, children are best off being raised by their biological parents or an extended biological family including their biological parents.

On this Scripture and even the radically materialist selfish-gene version of neo-Darwinism agree. (To put it is neo-Darwinist terms: All organisms which require parental nurture for survival until reproductive age are best cared for by organisms of their species that share genotype.)