Homosexual adoption

As before I will try to respond to each of your points in turn. Your first point states that because the laws position and definition of adoption is applicable to gay couples; this is because it does not state otherwise, or call for only heterosexual couples, and it is illegal under UN law to discriminate based on sexuality. From a lawyers point of view; fine, good point. But I do not use laws to shape my own philosophy, and the mere fact that a law can co-habit with a certain practice doesn't give me reason to support that practice. I get your point about not choosing our parents, that is true. You logic is we cannot choose our parents in the natural world and thus not being able to choose them in this circumstance is 'natural' and so acceptable. I see the logic and agree but I do not quite see why, when actually given the choice, we would put a child with same sex couple rather than with a traditional couple. Now this issue about whether gay households are better for children, or more specifically, worse for children than traditional households is the real issue here. The evidence shows that gay parented children are no different from regular parented children, but the means in which these these people are tested may not be showing every possible psychological effect. It is known that children hold their parents to be 'godlike' (when they are really young) and the lack of a same sex role model or an opposite sex model at this stage seems too me, quite a serious matter. There are distinct differences between men and women and, whichever sex you are, you learn what you are, and familiarise yourself with the opposite sex very early in childhood from your parents. So, you say there is no evidence showing a measurable difference in children of gay parents and children of non gay parents. This is supported by some research as I have explained, but it has its limitations. I will address your other points and then link them back to this one. You next point basically says 'its not fair' that gays aren't allowed to use the surrogate/adoption agencies when traditional couples can. It's not there (the law) to be unfair to gays, its there for the children's well being (whether you agree that it protects children or not, it is a law to protect the children, not to discriminate against gays). Your last point I will link back to the 3rd paragraph. You say that homosexuality not being natural, is merely religious jargon. I don't believe it is just religion that makes it 'un normal'. For instance, nearly every creature, every human, every mammal that has ever existed, did so because of a heterosexual 'relationship'. Homosexuality (however much individuals are genetically predetermined to be so) does not produce others and thus it 'dies-out' each time it is acted upon and so does not continue. I would argue that homosexuality is in many ways a social construct, resulting from social issues such as gender confusion (you say gay parented children are more likely to be gay, this could be due to gender confusion) and being confused about who they are and what their place is in the world. Landolt et al (2004) showed how homosexual men faced a lack of social structure, connectedness and guidance in childhood and found a direct link from this too (what he called) gender non-conformity in early life. The research is not clear on whether genes cause homosexual behaviour but the research here and the point that gays are more likely to form in gay households, suggests an environmental influence. Therefore if homosexual behaviour is an environmentally determined behaviour, we can assume its not necessarly natural or normal. But Obviously the fact that these couples cannot have sex and sometimes have to have physicaly unhealthy sexual practices and cannot have children, is the main indicator of their not so normal 'couple' behaviour. I believe that children brought up in these households are more likely to have some confusion about themselves and their sexuality than children in a traditional family. And I re state my argument that gays should be able to adopt children, but not be able to come above traditional families on the adoption register. A further point is that adoption agencies (assuming there is an exess of parents not children) and surrogate mother organisations, are set up to help couples who cannot consieve children because of fluke medical conditions. There are much more healthy gay couples than problem traditional couples. I worry that with an increase in homosexuality and a decreasing taboo against owning kids, and this being the only option they have of having kids, it will become almost like a market for children and the problem couples of man and women will be competing with a huge numbers of gay couples. As every gay couple needs a surragut or adoptee. Again, the point is that these agencies are created for couples who are having difficulty conceiving a child, they are not there for gay couples who want children. Also, theoretically, if there was no gay fostering taboo then every gay couple would typically want to adopt 2/3 children and this would make it even more difficult for man/woman couples to get their baby. Look forward to your response Landolt, M. A., Bartholomew, K., Saffrey, C., Oram, D., & Perlman, D. (2004). Gender nonconformity, childhood rejection, and adult attachment: A study of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(2), 117-128. Chicago