No.

The data on this is a still a bit vague and incomplete, but the studies so far suggest that children who are raised by a couple - whether gay or straight - are generally better off than those being molested and raped in group homes.

Seriously though, there's not much to suggest that children with two parents of the same sex are any worse off than those who have two parents of the opposite sex. The data is very incomplete, though, and most studies have only looked at lesbian parents so far. What can be said, however, is that children with only one parent are at a far greater disadvantage than those with two of the same sex.

There are bigger concerns such one or both parents displaying antisocial behaviour. I think a gay couple, who have had to jump through all sorts of hoops to adopt a child, are likely going to raise happier and healthier children than a straight couple who had a whoopsie and ended up resenting the child because of it.

I've heard dubious stories like the ones runner's mentioned, but sometimes you find that these people "found God" at some point in their lives and that's where their objections to same-sex parenting come from. Like this idiot for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3001703/Another-mom-never-replaced-father-lost-Woman-raised-lesbian-moms-comes-against-gay-marriage.html

Foxy,

I don't think your concerns are as warranted now as they would have once been. Gay kids these days are usually out by the time they're 14 or 15 and the ones I know of, through a nephew of mine, don't seem to be given hard time about it. So I don't think having two parents of the same sex will be too much of a problem. Less and less so as time goes on too.

An electrical contractor was telling me that he and his wife had delayed their children for too long, being encouraged into a false security by the over-publicised (my opinion) success of older women and fertility assistance. They had exhausted the available options and themselves and looked to adoption.

However the advice on adoption he said they received was that their age would preclude them for ever being successful.

Knowing this stable, emotionally mature and loving couple I was saddened that others who might qualify before them on age alone, if weight is not attached to the highly desirable outlook, maturity, care and opportunities they could offer (and prove).

I am left wondering what direct consultation responsible bureaucrats and politicians, ever have with the electorate and what notice is ever taken. The couple I speak of could easily raise several children, putting more hours a day in than most younger couples would have available or even be motivated to commit to.

It is activists and those who can pay lobbyists who have the ear of politicians and can manipulate the media to embarrass politicians whose asserted desires are met. That excludes the majority of the population.

So I wouldn't be worried about the gays and the leftist 'Progressives' behind them not having gay 'rights' brought to the attention of the Parliament.

The better question here would avoid the over-exposed gay agenda and seek to understand what is causing the unexpected, enduring peak in abortions by women, early twenties to thirty, in their best years for having and raising children.

There is no appetite in some quarters for discussing the government reports that young working couples are being required to delay and eventually not have the children they planned and worked for. -Because young working couples are burdened with the taxes, user pays and higher housing costs arising from over-enthusiastic immigration, that lobs in the large metropolitan cities anyhow.

None of that is to challenge the present abortion arrangements. Nor is it being said that women should have children they don't want.

"Being a parent comes with huge responsibility and for any parent, whether they bare a child natually, adopt or otherwise must do all they can to provide that child with the best, most balanced upbringing they can provide..."

I agree, rehctub, bearing the responsibility of raising children is vitally important. But,

"...placing a child in a situation where they will more than likely be bullied as a result of have a mum and a mum, or a dad and a dad at home is not in the best interests of that child."

raises difficult issues.

Since this circumstance shows the ineptitude of the bully's parents, my instincts would be to remove the bullies into a better domestic environment. Others might disagree.

Foxy, since we can all of us use Argument from Anecdote here is a short one from someone who doesn't make money on the US conservative lecture circuit, and was in fact adopted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFcnZWdZRK0

[I suspect his biggest issue will be choosing between Catholicism and Judaism.]

This is probably the easiest thread to respond to yet. There is no reason why they cannot. All a child needs is a loving parent. Where a mother or father are no longer living does that deny them to keep their children. You religious bigots will steep to no depths.