OK, so adoption can be a really emotionally charged issue, but it's important, so I think it's worth discussing. I have thought a lot about my feelings on adoption by "alternative" households and whether the best interest of the children is in mind or whether it's more about people getting what they want for their own happiness or sense of accomplishment and acceptability.
After all, in a way, when you're voluntarily bringing children into a household in which they are going to face social ridicule, socially atypical gender roles, or behavior and beliefs which most of society agrees is deviant and even unhealthy, how can adopting children be seen as anything but selfish?
Children raised in "alternative" homes often tell of persecution at school, emotional and psychological pressures far beyond what their peers must deal with, and isolation from their community for being part of a family they didn't choose to be with. There's a whole set of common problems unique to their situation.
Many of these children grow up to live differently from their parents, but being raised in a household so outside social norms and standard behaviors leaves them ill-prepared for life within their community or with someone of the opposite sex who grew up in a more socially stable, normal environment.
The most loving and selfless policy is to make sure children up for adoption find homes headed by parents who do not bring these inherent stressors and deviations into their lives. Adopted children are already in a volatile enough position, coming from orphanages and foster homes, so there's no sense in adding complications to their already sensitive lives. They're better off living as most of society lives to give them the best chance at success.
We shouldn't be making decisions affecting the welfare of the nation's children based on the shrill cries of activists who seek validation and selfishly want to fulfill their fantasies about raising children in their deviant homes. Besides, they chose to live the way they're living and could've chosen to live differently if they wanted children. Therefore, I've come to the conclusion, based on concern for the children and logical analysis, that adoption should not be allowed for the Amish.
Speaking of piecing together statistics from where I want them, studies have shown major depressive episodes to be far more prevalent among people from the south, and substance abuse much higher among certain Native American populations, so those populations should probably be barred from adoption as well. Oh, and far more 26-49-year-olds are treated for depression and substance abuse than other age demographics, so adoption should probably be limited to people under 26 and over 49. Shoot, suicide rates jumped 20% from 1999 to 2004 among people aged 45 to 54, which is a disconcerting trend, so we should put them on hold too, until they stop offing themselves. Some studies in the past have shown domestic violence to be higher among African American populations, so black people shouldn't be allowed to adopt and bring children into such a violent environment. Speaking of which, interracial couples should be barred from adoption because the social troubles inherent to such a home would be overwhelming in many areas of the country. And Mormons may carry a facade of mainstream family values but are really cult members who lead their children away from the true Christ and his grace into a path which leads to eternal damnation by the arrogance of their doctrine, so it would be better for the children if they were placed in Christian homes where they'll be brought up with values and truth. As for a southern black/white Mormon couple in their late twenties, well they should be required to have their tubes tied.
Shoot, I say leave the kids in the orphanages where they won't be messed up by selfish people bringing them into misled, sinful, stressful, abnormal homes of people who belong to demographics with high-risk statistics for mental disorders and substance abuse. Think of the children.