Thank you for putting a face to those “ookie scary militant homosexual activists who are adoping not-real kids just for their agenda”. It’s a lot harder spouting hatred when the victim of your demonization are right there in front of you. And thank you for standing up for Amoret. She is a lucky little girl.

To me, they’re not showing off the child as a symbol but the family as a whole as a symbol. And what a beautiful symbol that is, in my opinion.

You overlook the fact that many M-M couples now opt for one of the partners to be the sperm donor and have their child thru a surrogate mother. This is every much their child as a step-parent raising a child from a very young age.

Good point. Still, odds are when a child is of a different race and color than the parents it’s adopted. That’s not a certainty as you note.

The racial element can not be dismissed since these bigots are almost exclusively white Tea-Baggers as will as being gNOMe bigots.

So IOW you wish to engage in the very same racism and stereo-typing that you criticize others for? Interesting…

I do find it interesting that they picked out the Mormon couple–who were probably ordered by their local Elder to attend.

(I cannot resist this JOKE–apologies in advance if anyone if offended: I am amazed that they only have one kid–I didn’t think BYU gave diplomas to anyone with less than three.)

I do think there is a racist element there. He could have made the same cut about them not being “real” parents if the kid were white. He chose to point out the kid’s race, which was unnecessary. If a MM couple have a child, it obviously isn’t a biological one.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. There’s enough to criticize NOM for without bringing in a flimsy charge of racism. The fact that the parents are of an obviously different color and race is a sign that the child is adopted. If the child were obviously of the same race and color as at least one of the same-sex parents there would still be a chance one could be the biological parent. This to me was an stupid slam on adoptive parents even though I’m sure NOM only meant it for same-sex parents.

I also wonder if that adorable white baby in the first picture was adopted, too. It is, of course, possible.

The undertones here are absolutely disgusting.

@ Bearchewtoy: Some same-sex couples do have biological children from previous relationships. I know two bisexual parents, both with same-sex partners now, raising children conceived in previous mixed-sex relationships.

Personally, I believe that if an individual or group or prejudiced against one group, such as gays, they’re very likely to be prejudiced against other groups. The comment on interracial adoptions does nothing to make me reconsider my opinion.