RUSH: I don’t know if you know this or not, but: “Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.” How many of you could figure that that’s where this was headed? “The study published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.” (gasp!) It’s a beautiful thing. “‘One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,’ Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study?s three co-authors, said Monday. ‘Adoptive parents face a culture where, to many other people, adoption is not real parenthood. What they’re trying to do is compensate. They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the stage for them to be better parents.'”
This is just so predictable, and it is more of what we have already experienced in an effort here to overturn the institutions that have defined society and civilization for years. It’s not just that we have to overturn them. Now we have to actually suggest that these institutions that have worked miraculously and marvelously for all these years are actually not good at all! The truth to this, and the whole purpose of this research, again, found in the opening paragraph here: “Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and a gay adoption.” So what they’re saying is essentially that, “Hey, you know, same-sex marriage and gay adoptive parents, why, yeah, they’re much better than even normal parents, much better than natural parents. Because they really want kids, and they’ll go all the way and they’ll fight all the taboos and so forth. They’ll really, really be much better parents.” This is standing everything on its head. This is what liberalism has to do. In order for liberalism to succeed — and make no mistake, that’s what this is.
This is just another arm of liberalism. This has nothing to do with true child rearing, what’s better or not. What has to happen for liberalism to succeed is that the cultural norms that have been in place for thousands, gazillions of years, have to be overturned. Liberalism is a direct contradiction to the natural, to the normal, in many ways, and this is just glaring, glaring proof of it. “The researchers said that 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents.” Wait a minute, now. “The researchers said 161 families in this survey were headed…” Oh, 161 families were headed by two adoptive parents, not two adoptive parents headed 161 families. It’s the 161 families each had… This is another example of rotten journalism: I’m having to explain to you what the writer here is saying. So they had 161 families and the heads of each of the families were two adoptive parents. They “rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria, including helping with homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural activities and family attendance at religious services.
“The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.” What? “The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children”? I know what means. They don’t socialize with parents of other children. So what? I couldn’t tell you who my neighbors are. Does that make me a lousy homeowner? What the hell’s this got to do with anything? “The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.” So they didn’t talk to the parents of other kids. Whoop-de-do. They didn’t set up any play dates. Of course not, because they’re playing with the parents! Of course they wouldn’t set up play dates. The whole point of this is they’re playing with the parents. The kids are having more fun with the parents than they have with other kids. The parents are their whole life, the adoptive parents, my gosh! In fact, you know what we need to do here, folks? If this is true — and everything is for the children, right? The Democrat Party says it’s for the children, right? What we need to do is just to hell with marriage. Two people get pregnant (interruption).
What? What? I know it’s a risk. (interruption) I don’t have kids, therefore, I’m not qualified to talk about it. I know. See, you’re reminding me of that story from Germany that nobody can talk about anything unless you’ve done it. Well, screw that, as we said screw that then! Look, this is big news. This is AP, and it’s a long story, and the whole purpose of this is what? To tell us that adoptive parents are better than natural parents! They’re better parents. The kids end up happier. They get more. They get more attention. So what we need to do here, if this is true, and everything is done for the children, right? Everything is done “for the children.” Nancy Pelosi made it a big deal when she was inaugurated as speaker of the House. Everything for the children. Well, if adoptive parents are better than natural parents, then let the Democrats propose legislation that says every child born in America will be put up for adoption, because if the child stays with its natural parents, that’s the lesser of two options. Being adopted is much better than living with your natural parents. That’s what this research is attempting to say. Well, you smirk out there. “No, Rush.”
It’s exactly what it’s trying to say! See, some of you people get caught up in the good feelings of all this and you fail to take this to its natural conclusion.
“Well, they’re just trying to make the case that some adoptive parents are better, Rush. That’s all they’re trying to do.”
No, they’re not trying to make the case that some. They are making the case here that adoptive parents do a better job of parenting than natural parents do, and they’re not drawing any distinctions. Now, we know the reason for this. This is to promote a social agenda of gay marriage and gay adoption, because in gay marriage, you’re still going to have to go adopt kids, sorry, or you’re going to have to have David Crosby come in and fertilize one of the wombs, whatever, but you’re still going to have kids. Adoption is still going to be part of the recipe, and that’s what we’re being told here. So if that’s the case, it’s the case.
“The researchers noted that adoptive couples in general were older and wealthier than biological parents, but they said the adoptive parents still had an advantage when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality. In particular, adoptive parents had a pronounced edge over single parent and stepparent families.” Oh, see, it gets even worse! It gets even worse. “Adoptive parents are even better than stepparents or single parents.” Yes, and of course who’s behind this? The Associated Press. It is what it is, folks, and you can sugarcoat this all you want, and you can say, “Rush, you’re making too big a deal out of it.” I’m not. This is how societal norms and structures have to be torn down in order for liberalism and some of its oddball characters are to be categorized as normal.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Wendy in Pittsburgh, glad you waited. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: My question about that adoptive parent study, the 161 couples, were they heterosexual couples or were they homosexual couples? Because I think that’s an important item to know. Are you comparing apples and oranges? I just was a little bit confused.
RUSH: If I were an NFL sports reporter, I’d be able to ask you that question because it would matter to me, but I don’t think it says here.
CALLER: Okay, because really, if it’s comparing heterosexual couples, then the left can’t use that to promote gay adoption. You can’t compare that, then. It would be a totally different family.
RUSH: Uh, not — I don’t know that that would matter in terms of the thing they’re trying to promote here.
CALLER: Well, it would matter, because adoptive families that are a heterosexual couple that is married is much more like a biological couple. If they’re studying heterosexuals, you can’t take that out of the context and then apply it to adoption.
RUSH: Sure you can! When you’re this group, that’s the whole point. You’re asking questions you’re not supposed to ask.
CALLER: Well, you’re asking them, too, aren’t you?
RUSH: I don’t have to ask ’em. I already know what this is about. See, I know this. This is a scam, it’s a sham from the get-go.
CALLER: Well, I am an adoptive parent, and so it’s important to me to know exactly what they’re comparing. I just think that’s a fact that needs to be in that article.
RUSH: Did you say you are an adoptive parent?
CALLER: Yes, I am.
RUSH: Well, how does it feel to be the best parent in the world?
CALLER: Well, listen, by the grace of God. (Laughing.) That’s what I say. I hope you feel better, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you. I do, too. But, see, the sexuality of the adoptive parents cannot be mentioned in this story or it will kill the whole program. You’ve gotta understand that.
RUSH: Doug in Elizabethtown, Tennessee. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Rush, thank you. Look, I agree with you. I think you hit the nail on the head as to the reason for why this study is getting any legs in the press, but I wanted to point out what I thought was why this thing is totally invalid, and that’s because they’re comparing apples to oranges. If you look at the adoptive parent, they have to go through a lot of trouble to adopt. So there’s somebody who really, really, really wants children. They gotta pay money; they gotta go through all sorts of tests and everything. The average natural parent, there’s a spectrum there of people that did want children and people that really didn’t want children. So you have to work to not have children if you’re married, you know? I’ve got eight kids myself. We don’t work too hard at not having children.
RUSH: Wow, you got eight kids?
CALLER: Yeah. (Laughing.)
RUSH: What did that take you, about 20 minutes and a couple packs of cigarettes?
CALLER: (Laughing.) I gave up smoking a long time ago. So they’re comparing apples to oranges. They’re comparing people that really, really want children to a group that all you can really say is that the average adoptive parent is better than the average natural parent, but you can’t —
RUSH: It doesn’t say that. You’re missing the whole point. You know what? I’m glad you called about this, because this is illustrative to me. You’re missing the point.
CALLER: I am?
RUSH: You are arguing this on the merits. This cannot possibly be about the merits. Could you think of anything more ridiculous than to assert that adoptive parents are better than natural parents? Stop. Period. Okay, if that’s the case, as this story seems to make — if that’s the point and if it’s all for the children — nothing else matters. No more natural parents! Every natural parent or couple that has a child, the kid goes up for adoption, because whoever adopts the kid is going to be a better parent than the two who conceived it.
CALLER: You’re absolutely right. You’re right.
RUSH: You start getting into how they did this and what were the data and who were the heterosexuals and who were the homosexuals, you’re missing the whole point of what they’re trying to do here.
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: They’re trying to redefine normalcy. They’re trying to tell you that you and your wife, you together, in about 20 minutes had eight kids, and that’s bad; that there’s a better way of doing it. Then if you’d have gone out and adopted somebody else’s kids eight times, you would be a better parent than you are with your own kids. Is that not absurd?
CALLER: Yes, it’s extremely absurd. I like the way you put it.
RUSH: You know, they used to say (Joycelyn Elders impression) “every child a planned and wanted child.” Now, what they’re saying is every parent a planned and wanted parent!
CALLER: Well, as usual, Rush, your humor hits the spot and gets right to the heart of it. I just wanted to add that little bit of analytical viewpoint to people that might be confused or worried about the impact of that study — or so-called study.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. Let me think of an analogy here. Let me come up with the most screwed-up analogy. Let me posit the notion… doo-doo-dee-doo-doo. I can’t think of something right off the top of my head, but I’m going to in just a second here. Let’s say that I propose… Just think of what would be. It would be something, the most outrageous proposal that you could come up in your own mind, involving human beings, and rather than reject it out of hand as being absurd, you start debating the merits. That’s the mistake people are making here. Let me read the first paragraph of this thing again: “Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents according to a national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption,” period. You don’t need to ask questions: “Well, who were the parents? Where did they find them?” That right there tells you what the point of this is, and the point of this survey — or research, study, whatever — is to present data which will allow the proponents of gay marriage and gay adoptive parents to say, “See? See? We can even be better parents than you heterosexual parents who are denying us the right to be, because of these social norms and so forth.”
To debate this is to fall into the trap. To start asking for specifics on the study is to fall into the trap. I got it. Proposal: Drinking your own urine will result in much better and long lasting health than drinking water. You’re not going to say, “Who did the survey? Who did the study? Why did it happen?” You’re going to say, “It’s ridiculous,” and you’re not going to pay any more attention to it. That’s about what this is, because when you posit the notion that adoptive parents are better than natural parents, period, than what do you do? If everything is “for the children,” you can’t have a mixture. If one is better, and it’s all about the children… You have to understand the politics behind all of this. One of the things that I think as I travel the highways and byways and thoroughfares, the back roads, the front roads of life, many people refuse to see — or because they don’t want to or because they just don’t see it — the politics behind practically every social concern in this country. Politics propels it. Politics defines it. Politics is behind shaping it or reshaping it. You know, people say, “I hate politics. I don’t like politics. There’s too much partisanship, not enough getting along,” and so forth.
Here’s a classic example. You want to be bipartisan here on this? Where’s the area of compromise between the notion here, according to the study, that adoptive parents are better than natural parents? Where do you compromise on it? Well, okay, then let’s do 30% adoptive and 70% natural. Why, it’s absurd to even start talking this way. Its purpose here is to start — just like the attacks on every other cultural institution, be it Nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments on public display, is just — to wear you down so that eventually you’ll throw your hands up in frustration. “Okay, I’m tired of arguing about it,” because this is not going to go away. This is strike one and it’s going to keep coming. Next time we’ll see a survey of 300 adoptive parents, and 400 and 500, and so on down the line. This is the nature of liberalism, folks. It’s plain as day to me, after reading this opening paragraph, what this is all about. The rest of this stuff is just icing on the cake.
“The researchers said that 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents and they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria,” in fact in an array of every criteria but one. “The researchers noted that adoptive couples were older and wealthier than biological parents, but they said adoptive parents still had an advantage, albeit smaller, when the data was reanalyzed to account for income…” So what’s this saying? Well, of course, you factor in the two young people in their early to mid-twenties, have kids, of course they’re going to have less money than an older adoptive couple! We’re going to use this to suggest that natural parents in their twenties are not good for kids, or that there’s a better option called adoption? Meanwhile, throw this one at ’em. If you want to find out how firmly they are behind adoption, how about adoption in cases of abortion? Would you suggest, and would you go along with adoption instead of abortion? It’s the same people behind this who are these pro-choice pro-abortionists.
You ask these same people the next time: “How about if we send a kid that’s going to be aborted to an adoption agency?”
“No, no! The woman’s right to choose! You can’t do that. (Grumbling.)”
“Well, but I thought adoptive parents are better?”
“Well, that can’t get in the way of a woman’s right to choose.”
These people are full of it, folks. Don’t swallow all this. Don’t fall for it. Don’t get so sidetracked debating the specifics here when it’s obvious from the get-go what’s really up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Tucson, Arizona, John, you’re next, sir. Great to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: I have a solution to the adoptive parents are better than natural parents dilemma. Adoptive parents have to go through all kinds of tests, qualifications, and whatever to actually become parents.
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: But if you’re a natural parent, you can just be any old idiot and have a kid.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: I think natural parents should have to go through a parental test or qualifications to actually be able to have kids.
RUSH: Who’s going to be giving the test? Who’s going to put the test together, and what questions are going to be on the test?
CALLER: I’ll put it together.
RUSH: You’ll put it together?
CALLER: (Laughing.) I don’t know.
RUSH: Give me an example of a question.
CALLER: Whoever puts the test together for adoptive parents puts it together for natural parents.
RUSH: (Groans.) This is trouble. Are you serious or are you just trying to be funny here?
CALLER: I’m trying to — I’m being funny in that the test is stupid.
RUSH: The problem here — and I want to warn you people about this as many times as it takes. The problem here, by taking any aspect of this story and building on it or debating it is lending credibility to an absurd proposition, and this is how liberalism gets a toehold, a foothold into our society. They come up with some… Do you people understand how stupid this proposition is, that adoptive parents are better parents than natural parents, ergo… Ergo what! If you start debating this, then you have lent credibility to that proposition. Then you’re opening yourself up to all kinds of dangers, because in debate, we all know that in America today, “For everybody to get along, there must be compromise, Mr. Limbaugh! There just must be compromise.” Well, who do you think is going to compromise here? Well, I guarantee you it would be the natural parent lobby. Can you imagine natural parents needing a lobby? But we’re going to have a natural parent lobby before this is all over, because there will be an argument here because the adoptive parents lobby is going to end up claiming they’re better parents than natural parents. If you engage them in any aspect of this — which I’ve been trying to warn you people not to go there today, and you keep going there — it has me worried for the future of the country.