Here in the Grand Ole Party, particularly in the Bible Belt, we're all about "Adoption, not abortion" –– except when we're not. We're all about freedom of association and letting people do their own thing –– except when they're doing that thing.

You know what I'm talking about. Despite conservatives' emphasis on family and liberty, many of them still don't think same-sex couples should have the liberty to start a family. Because the government is bad unless it comes to dictating who has the right to adopt, or something.

This talking point is cliche, but true: social conservatives are hypocritical when they talk about LGBT rights. Whether you agree with the LGBT community or not, you as a conservative should not have supported the government dictating who people married or who gets to adopt children. And if you preach "adoption not abortion," you should absolutely be in favor of more adoptions.

In the United States, 491,000 married couples are lesbian or gay, according to a 2016 Gallup poll. If even half of these couples decided to adopt one child apiece, that's nearly a quarter-million children rescued from foster care. This idea should fill you with hope if you care about the well-being of children. For no one could seriously argue that children with gay parents (whether you think that lifestyle is holy or not) are worse off than children being shuffled from home to home with no parents at all.

More than 400,000 children lived in foster care as of 2015. Despite the fact that all of us went to school with or otherwise encountered some people who had spent time in foster care, the problems of the system are one of the most ignored social topics of our time. The Department of Health and Human Services reported 683,000 foster children were victims of abuse and neglect in 2015. I wonder how many hundreds of others were abused, but no one ever investigated-- or perhaps were coerced into silence or even too young to comprehend what was happening. Furthermore, children shuffled from house to house and school to school have no sense of stability, no healthy attachments, no parents to call their own-- common sense dictates this lifestyle is detrimental.

Shame on anyone who thinks this type of life is better for a child than a life with two healthy moms or two healthy dads. Shame on any Christian who doesn't lift a finger to help the least of these but has Opinions when a gay atheist wants to adopt a baby.

Conservative Christians do adopt, foster and donate to children in need-- but not to the extent we should, and the fact remains that thousands of children need homes. Thousands more will be aborted because their parents aren't ready to take care of them. The fact remains that whether you condone homosexuality or not, LGBT couples are equally capable of loving, protecting, feeding and educating their kids. The arguments against same-sex adoption rights are not about the welfare of small ones. They are just about bigotry.

(And absolutely miss me with that "gays are pedophiles" stuff-- that dated stereotype has no basis in facts and statistics. And again, I direct you to the children being sexually abused in foster care, and dare you to tell me why that's a better life for them than life in a same-sex household.)

The same Book which defines marriage as something for a man and a woman also forbids divorce except in extreme cases, yet we see no crusades against divorced singles raising children. And far, far worse, we see no crusades against the abuses and injustices in the foster system-- although the Bible commands us over and over to do justly and love our neighbors as ourselves (especially the least of these). (Gosh, it's almost like extreme anti-LGBT sentiment has little to do with religion and more to do with prejudice).

Every child deserves a shot at birth and living. Preferably, they'll spend their childhoods in a stable home with a couple of people who will love them, protect them, read to them and take them on adventures once in a while. If you're more concerned about the gender of that couple than the well-being of the child, you're missing it.