The US conservative and journalist Matt Walsh has stated in a video that he believes children are better off in orphanages than with same-sex parents.
Walsh, who primarily contributes to the right-wing news site The Daily Wire is a Trump supporter, Christian, and a self-described theocratic fascist.
During one of his regular updates on The Daily Wire's YouTube channel, Walsh was asked a question by a listener in relation to children in orphanages being adopted by same-sex couples.
The question was:
You say that you want to reduce abortions, which will probably mean putting more children up for adoption but you would rather leave children in orphanages than allow loving gay couples to adopt them.
Do you really that it is better for a child to be in a foster home than adopted by a gay couple and how does this work with your pro-life beliefs.
In response, Walsh began by explaining how he believed every child would be adopted if abortions were abolished.
The hypothetical abolition of abortion would not result in a whole bunch of babies stuck in purgatory in the system for years on end.
There is no problem in this country with babies not finding families to adopt them. That is a myth and that's something that you hear from pro-abortion people all the time.
Even if that was true it would be a really bad reason to kill a child, not that there could ever be a good reason.
There are children that sadly end up in the system sometimes until they are 18 and are never adopted but those are children that end up in the system when they are older when they are six or seven.
It is hard to get a six or seven-year-old kid adopted, unfortunately, but the rush of new children entering the service by abolishing abortion would not be six-year-old kids, these would be infants and there is no problem getting infants adopted.
There is a waiting list 50-miles long of people just waiting to adopt an infant so there is absolutely no problem with that.
So. if we ended up with one hundred thousand new infants up for adoption then all of those infants would get adopted, I'm pretty sure it would.
He then added that he believes that every child deserves a mother and a father.
In my mind, every child needs and deserves a mother and father and that's a biological need. There is a reason why every person in history has been created by a mother and a father.
So, even if you don't want to use the word 'God,' let's say 'nature' clearly intends for a child to have a mother and a father, which is why every child does have a mother and a father, even if their mother and father are unable to care for them.
What I would ask you is, if we are talking about gay adoption, which of the two is expendable? Mother or father?
If we are talking about two gay men adopting a child, we can just get rid of the mother and say that a 'guy can do that.' A guy can't do that actually. A man cannot function as a mother.
A man can be a very loving father but he cannot be a mother. That is a role that he can biologically not fulfil and there are certain emotional and psychological needs that a child has that if he does not have a mother at home, will not be met.
That doesn't mean the child is doomed and can't end up being happy and fulfilled in life but he will be happy and fulfilled in spite of that disadvantage.
Walsh's radical comments have been met with derision online by people aghast at his views on gay couples fostering children.