“Having Gay Parents Is Worse Than Amputating A Child”… But, Like, Is It Really Though? DNA Has An Opinion!
Right-wing pundit Matt Walsh has stated that having gay parents is worse for kids than amputating the child’s limbs. No, seriously, he said it with a straight face!
There’s a lot to unpack here, but perhaps the first thing we should do is ask the children of gay parents whether they’d rather stay in their loving homes or have one or more of their limbs amputated? We all know the answer. Well, not all of us, hey Matt.
Put the question to the children of gay parents: Would you rather have your limbs amputated or keep your parents? Hmmm, how do we think most kids would answer that question?
Lukewarm take, bro.
Matt is a right-wing political commentator who hosts The Matt Walsh Show and is a columnist for The Daily Wire. In an episode on Tuesday, December 5, Matt made the observation about amputations.
“It’s true that some kids grow up with one arm or no arms but that obviously doesn’t make it any less horrific or barbaric to chop a child’s arm off. A child is meant to have two arms at birth,” he says.
It seems we have a trifecta here: he managed to be homophobic, ableist and, let’s say it, stupid all at once! If you thought it couldn’t get any worse, then you must be new here. In his explanation, Matt says that gay parents having children through surrogacy is the definition of “human trafficking”.
Furthermore – because of course there’s more – Matt says: “You might listen to all this and say, ‘Well this is unfair to gay couples, what if they want to have children? What are they supposed to do? Don’t we need to have some kind of system in place to help them achieve their parenthood dreams?'”
Yes! That sounds like a valid line of questions to us.
But Matty does not agree. “The answer to those questions is no, we don’t. Homosexual unions are sterile by their nature,” he says. “When a homosexual couple is unable to have children, none of them are able, or have ever been able, or ever will be able. That is a sign from nature, about as glaring and obvious a sign as there could be, that gay couples are not meant to have kids.”
Lovely logic, Matt but here’s where it falls down: does this mean you believe that infertile straight couples should also not be allowed to have children? Is that not also a “sign from nature”? Perhaps he forgot that there are also straight couples that can’t conceive.
By extension, perhaps Matt believes that couples who can’t have children, or couples who choose not to have children, shouldn’t be allowed to be couples at all? It’s a sign from nature, right?
Typically we don’t LOVE platforming bigotry like this, but when someone says something this out of pocket, we’ll give them their soap box and let them pillory themselves. Have the day you deserve Mr Walsh!
