Homosexual adoption

I will just remind you of the argument: that should there be a sustained exess of parents wanting to adopt, then man woman couples would be 'preferable' to homosexual couples. I think gay people should be allowed to adopt children, and raise children, I would think it a disgrace if they where not allowed to. Also, I don't think it is anyone's 'right' to 'purchase' (adopt) a child. It must only be done in the most extreme circumstances. Should the world be as it should, there would be practically no kids in orphanages, and so homosexuals could not raise children (obviously apart from fluke situations, eg death etc.) . So in a world where it is unlikely that an infertile couple could ever find a orphan child, I would put them on a separate list to all the homosexual couples that also wanted a child. Maybe this is not right, but I don't want people to think that I am saying what it seems like I am saying, if you read the other peoples comments. I am not against homosexuals and traditional couples being on the same list now, nor am I opposed to gays raising children. I am saying that both a father and a mother is better for children than two dads and no mother, or two mothers and no dad. This is not a dig at homosexuals at all, it doesn't question their character, ability to bring up children or their rights, it questions the effects of not having either a mother or father on a child that could otherwise have both. Your first paragraph: I would not be in support of allowing single parents over two parents either. You say that children get both gender role models, because one or both parents exhibit the opposite sexual tendancy to their physical self. I don't know if that's quite true, I think learning about females through a 'camp dad' is going cause some confusion to a tender mind. I have shown the research that shows things too be different with homosexual parents. It is not their fault, as I have said, it is NOTHING to do with their personalities, rights or morals: it is the underlying problem that gender roles are confused and the child is confused. If people are gay let them be so, but they cannot have children because they are not meant too and they cannot. They should not be banned like I have said, but not allowing lots of babys the right to a father an a mother that really want them, because of large numbers of homosexual couple's of two dads or two mums want a baby, is thenconcern for me. So just to answer your numbered points at the end. 1. Natural . Roughly 3% of modern humans are homosexual, and animals only really show homosexual tendencies in captivity, and homosexuals do not reproduce. So everything in the world is essentially natural, but homosexuals having children certainly isn't because it is impossible. Again I remind you the argument isn't about whether homosexuals should be allowed to have children or not. 2. A 'camp' dad or a 'butch' mam is not an exact substitute for a actual dad or actual mam. At best this will be a little less effective at socialisation into the real world, at worst it will be deeply confusing for the children. And the point on single parents Is irrelevant because I would not choose a single person over a traditional couple either, indeed I have not given it thought but believe I would have a gay couple instead of a single parent. Like I state again, I am not against gays raising children, that is not the argument! 3. You say my WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on homophobic tendencies. I don't really know how to respond to that apart from insisting that I am not 'homophobic'. I assume you mean that I personally have a dislike for gays, based on a lack of experience of them and a bigoted attitude towards understanding them. Resulting in a dislike for them due to my aggressive and essentially 'bigoted' personality. So I have come to try and attack them, to chip away at their rights. This is absolutely absurd, I am an understanding person who is open minded, 'liberal', understanding and sympathetic. Some of my friends who I deeply respect and hold in very high regard are gay, and i have gay family members whom I love. I have explained my position on the 'rights' argument, that rights do not apply to other individuals, and it is nobodies 'right' to have dominion over a child. These points you make of homophobia and rights are to general and not direct enough. Both concepts are abstract and vague, and so are difficult to defend. I don't feel you have fully elaborated each argument (homophobia/rights) or fully addressed my position regarding these points, I feel you merely restate that you think I am homophobic and gay people should have exactly the same rights. You don't address the research that shows negative differences in the children of them households, you didn't seem to acknowledge that I was only arguing that a mother and father would be preferable to a gay couple, and not that gay couples shouldn't be allowed. The research says that two dads and no mother or two mothers and no father is potentially 'damaging' to children. You do not address this issue. Your argument against the potential effects of lacking a mother, is that a camp dad will be just as good. You do not address the potential confusion that a child might face, children don't see the world how we do. I get the feeling that you still feel that I think gays are less that everybody else and so don't deserve the same rights, I cannot give any more explanations to why that its not true. So thank you for this argument it was very enjoyable and I admire your liberalism and attitude towards freedom and equality. Thank you