A few things caught my attention reading this article.

The most striking thing about the lady in this article was that she was raising four children on her own by CHOICE!!! I don't understand why a single parent would be allowed to adopt four children. We talk about adoption and the fact that it is a family by design, but at the same time someone has to allow this design to form. Why would someone sit and go, "yeah, one parent four kids, you guys should be fine."

If a single mother can be allowed to adopt four kids why can't a same-sexual couple adopt one?

And why stop at that? Why can't a reformed/rehabilitated sexual offender adopt a child? Who are we to judge whether or not such a person has truly changed his ways.

Now to make it absolutely clear I'm not trying to compare a sexual offended to a single parent or same-sex couple. The point I am trying to make is once you no longer perceive a family as a unit consisting of two loving parents, a male and a female, that are committed to raising their children so that those children may later engage in a process of self and social refinement then it doesn't matter what people do. Free will with no overarching structure is a recipe for disaster. The subsequent discussion as to which version of a family is deemed to be socially acceptable is to me an arbitrary one, and a decision that misses the point.

When all is said and done and everyone is free to assemble any variation of a family they want, then what?

What will people do once they have that right? What is the purpose of the family? What is it to do? What are they trying to achieve? If you don't know those things how are you going to decide what form of a family is acceptable or not?

The other thing to stick out in the article was the lady's dual use of the word adoption. In one part of the article it is used to reflect a willful choice she made, the adoption of her children and the single parent life. In its second use "adoption" is tied to a circumstance thrust upon her by necessity. It is funny that the word adoption doesn't necessarily imply free will though one would think it would. I'm not even sure I understand what she means by the word adoption after reading her use it in two contrasting ways.

I know it means to make something your own, but doesn't that entail choice? And if so doesn't that entail your own free will? If so what the heck does an adoption of necessity mean? You made something your own by lack of choice?

I don't get it.