I hope you do not mind lesbians adopting children, and, more so, you hopefully would be outraged if someone dared to doubt that children do not need fathers, because in that case the gentleman on the left will call you a homophobic retard. No, not in private or on his personal blog but in a brochure directed at lesbians who are interested in buying themselves a child.
Why? Because the aforementioned gentleman knows that two lesbians are better for a child than a married couple[*]. This is two women who act as if they did not know that two vaginas are one too much for a couple, and that no penis is one too few – just to remind you. In short, two severely disturbed women, androphobes, who act as if they were disgusted by sexuality but yet demand to enjoy its fruit, that is, having children.
Do not repeat this after me, unless you are willing to attract the wrath of the likes of experts of child psychiatry as Professor Stephen Scott, the funny guy with the carefully draped and artfully shaped curls on the picture. That he is a foaming heterophobe by writing you have learned above, how gynophobic he is in his erotic desires I cannot say, only see looking at the picture. But who knows, he could just act the bisexualist metrostylist. Anyway, he got distinct problems with the prefrontal area, which he does not only decorate with curls making a better image than baldness but also likes to imagemap and write about in psychiatric journals as the seat of rebellious behavior of little boys.
‘Cause you know those obstinate and defiant little brats got to be sick in their brain, otherwise they would not give their poor helpless mommy such troubles. They must suffer from either conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder unless, of course, it is attention deficit/hyperactivity. No, I forgot, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, otherwise they would not show the symptoms of oppositional or aggressive or anti-social behavior but merely act rude and unruly.
And, as you know, boys with a healthy brain behave themselves, especially if their mother is at her wit’s end, or even chronically beyond it, as that is the considerate way, and therefore appropriate for male human specimens toward female ones.
You might suggest to him to have his own prefrontal cortical activity imagemapped to find out where his anti-social attitude and his oppositional aggressive behavior against due sexually and reality oriented people come from, but it is impolite and could hurt his feelings, too.
This living light of expertise about disobedient children and their suffering mothers is in deep sorrow about the huge sums it costs the economy when children are aggressive (see his profile, link below), so he (or rather: He) is untiring in his efforts to tell parents how to deal with temper tantrums and backtalking and all those symptoms of the epidemic brain illnesses of the little boys of today.
Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve him when he tells the world “Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman.”
After all he is director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners and director of the National Adoption and Fostering Team at Maudsley Hospital, and he is much more than that, in fact the list of his positions in national British and international institutions is impressively endless.
It is only comprehensible that he did not yet find the time to read some of the numerous sociological studies which all come to the same simple conclusion: it is the absence of the father (or at least a socalled father figure) which is the only consistent correlating condition for all kinds of socially disruptive and criminal behavior of boys and young men and of girls and young women.
Two of them are mentioned here as a counter to our impolite heterophobic shouter.
The Daily Mail reports some background to Prof. Scott’s statement:
The remarks from a leading child development expert will anger supporters of the traditional family who are concerned about the lack of a father figure in many children’s lives.
The state-funded national adoption agency provoked a row earlier this year after branding opponents of gay adoption ‘retarded homophobes’ in a guide for homosexual couples.
In the guide, which had to be pulped, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering told would-be adopters: ‘Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don’t let your worries about society’s reaction hinder your desire to give a child a loving caring home.’ [stress by author]
Do not misunderstand me, there is no need for any studies, common sense is enough. And common sense is the relevant ground for opposing homosexuals being allowed to adopt children, as much as it is for opposing single women or men to do so.
It’s simple: If one avoids the challenges of an intimate relationship with the other sex, the spiritual and psychical and social efforts to pay as its costs, one is by this very token not justified in claiming the result and reward of such a relationship. And, unless one is willing to live together with the other actual parent in the cooperative duty of raising the child, one is depriving the child of his natural right to grow up with his parents.
Yet, common sense is dangerous. It tends to deem the nannyism and the micro-management of people’s ways of living and being through the government a totalitarian offense against the citizens maturity and autonomy, even as an indefensible breach of the very foundations of enlightenment and the constitution of a liberal democracy.
Common sense is reactionary, as it relies on people’s own experience and insights in issues like parental discipline, fatherly authority and the effect of their lack, namely spoiled rotten children acting like entitled tyrants toward everyone around them. Instead of viewing parenting as a discipline dependent on behavioral psychiatry and double-blind tested brain-drug prescriptions.
It is easy to grasp what an economic disaster would arise if fathers were allowed to raise their own children according to their own authority as head of the household, just as in the past few millions of years, without the courts being authorized to interfere as they see fit and terminate the father’s rights in case the mother or the social worker would feel better seeing him kicked out of the life of his children.
Not only the child care and child protection industries would largely be out of business but countless social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, university departments, teachers, lawyers, judges and clerks of all brands of government organizations became superfluous. Most of all, pediatricians would have no reason and no chance to prescribe psycho-active drugs to millions of children who don’t behave, as only a handful truly unruly brats would exist, just as it was in the not so far past, which in turn would more or less ruin a number of pharmaceutical corporations with thousands of jobs and phantastic figures of dollars, pounds and euros of profit lost.
The adoption industry would come to a crunching halt, almost a full brake, should both parents be held accountable for raising the children they sire. And when sickness, accident or death prevent it, children need to grow up with their grandparents or uncles and aunts or other relatives of theirs, instead of being given, in some ways rather even be sold, to childless couples. There is never a justification to separate them from their kin and give them to strangers. Because, let’s remember, children are not the property of the state, lent to their parents, but always the members of their family, their clan of blood relatives, and belong there from the depths of their heart and soul.
There would not be a market for foster care and adoption if feminism were not in rule of the political powers and publicized opinion. The primary and fundamental purpose of feminism, stated in all its orthodox scripture, was and is the destruction and abolition of the family as the required method to “liberate” and “empower” women, from Engels on until today’s feminists in NGOs, politics, bureaucracy and academia.
Specifically, all social workers and employees of socalled child protection services are continually educated in feminism as intrinsic base of their curriculum and supervision, as their fundamentalist philosophy of social change for a just society and better world.
And, “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.”
So it is not in any way by chance that “progressive” ideologists referring to advocacy research have gone from defending the unproblematic nature of being raised by only one of one’s parents and his or her homoerotic lover to presently advocating the perverted constellation over the natural in a shout-outs like the one of Scott and his colleagues. As it is not by chance that in the EU the average common secretary of women’s affairs keeps talking how she is eager to support all “different kinds of families” and is sure to mention single mothers by sperm donorship and same sex “couples”. It’s just the regular contemporary UN and EU agenda, fundamentalist feminist and thus misandric, especially and strategically misopatric (father-vilifying, demeaning and dismissing) in all guidelines for new laws and regulations.
[*] From a review of studies on same sex females parenting’s effects on children (New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence):
It seems an interesting coincidence that earlier this year, another paper authored by Biblarz and Stacey (2010) offered a similar conclusion to that of Gartrell and Bos: “In fact, based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and a man with a traditional division of labor (p.17).”
 The terms “couple” and “sexuality”are used here as what they actually have been coined and applied for before heterophobes have captured them for themselves as well: couple means a man and a woman in sexual partnership; sexuality means the male to female act of penetration resulting in offspring, and the feelings, emotions, behaviors and motives around that; this in contrast to eroticism which can involve any sources of stimuli for erotic sensations but has nothing to do with procreation and therefore with parenthood and the family.
 From Prof. Stephen Scott’s profile on National Services:
Stephen Scott is a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist in the CAMHS Adoption and Fostering Service and the Conduct Problems Service. He is also a Professor of Child Health and Behaviour at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London and He[!] is the Director of the National Academy for Parenting Research, London.
 Adapted by lesbian feminists from Ti Grace Atkinson’s “Feminism is a theory, lesbianism is a practice” according to Robyn Ochs (1996) writing about “biphobia”.
 Homoeroticism (or homophilia) has not changed its character of being a perversion of the natural and sane erotic orientation just because those investing in heterophobia do not like to hear that term. On the other hand, it is crucial to not let oneself be corrupted in thinking by using terms which disguise the character and qualities of the phenomenon they are used for. We must not submit to political pressure and moral blackmail should we care for a society with the freedom of thought and speech as a primary condition to pursue the ideals of truth, justice and liberty.