A law against what, Bugsy? What are you on about? More emotion, more ideology. Can't you argue the issue?

Nate 10, thankyou for posting a reasoned response!

The methodological issues raised about this one study are interesting but unless there is a better comparative study of a higher standard then there can be no better claims of a comparative fitness of heterosexual parenting compared to homosexual and lesbian parenting, so without a better methodology comparative study that shows a disadvantage from same-sex parenting then one cannot be assumed to exist. As science works by best available evidence then logically the study still stands. And this was not the only study to find the same results!

Now when the demographics issues of disadvantage you raised with that study mentioned are taken into account by other studies? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm Gay parenting still is equal to hetero parenting when those factors are taken into account! The quality academic studies still back same-sex adoption!

Another issue: We already allow same-sex couples to foster children, often they look after the child to adulthood. So by preventing adoption the child is denied inheritance rights and stability and next-of-kin status for no actual benefit making all the 'mother and a father' arguments spurious logical fallacies for many of the children who would actually be adopted.

In many cases it's not about whether the child should be adopted by gays or heterosexuals but whether they will be adopted at all or by no-one because the available people, same-sex couples, are unavailable.

Isn't there some sort of disconnect here though John? (by the way, could you point me in the direction of these studies I should read?)

'I have emotional problems because I didn't know my father, therefore gays shouldn't adopt'.

As Dick points out, children don't have any say in the matter.

Children never get to choose their parents, that's life. There's heaps of catholics and other types of morons out there that got married 'cause on of them got pregnant. Many of their children wish they had a say. But children cope. That's what humans do. If you have a loving pair of people supporting you through your life, who would have major problems? Probably the ones who listen to the likes of you in society who them they should have some.

The very fact that gay couples choose to have a child to love and are willing to be put on the adoption waiting list and wait for years and be put under the intense scrutiny that goes with it, means that I would certainly think that they could at least qualify to be put on the list. The argument that they have 'short lived relationships' seems silly to me, I know couples on the adoption waiting list that have been on it longer than a fair percentage of heterosexual marriages.

Tilly J
You’re a worry Tilly J. Here is an idiom that may help you better understand love; “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. The article discusses the potential welfare of children adopted. Happiness is but one issue and I would safely say a minor one compared to the safety of the child.

The homosexual lobby do not agree amongst themselves on the legitimacy of the twin issues of marriage and adoption and the long term usefulness of both to themselves, so the best description for homosexual parenting and adoption is, in a word, “risk”. Consequently in a phrase, “social or breaching experiment”.

What is urgently needed here in Australia with its high ethnic and religious diversity is strong research which explores its ability as a social unit to adjust to changes which the gay and lesbian lobby are currently attempting to inflict on it through objective political allegiances with the Australian Labor party and the Greens. All the more reason I suggest to wish for an Abbott government; on this issue alone

The studies do seem to indicate that children statistically do best when parented by two parents, and when the parents are married.

This is why church groups are so opposed to widows and widowers bringing up children alone, and why they are so much in favour of Gay marriage.

Oh wait... they're not, are they?

Hypocrites.

It's one thing to honestly be against homosexuality, and recognition of homosexual relationships, purely on Religious grounds. It's when they make up stuff because they know that their religious beliefs alone aren't convincing that they bear false witness.

See
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1
http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf

Hypocrites? Ummm.. they seem to always imply that the marriage has to be between a heterosexual couple when they state the child's natural born right to a mum and dad. In fact marriage as recognised by the church can only exist between a man and woman so i dare say there is nothing hypocritical about that. Try not to manipulate what the church says in an effort to serve your own baseless argument...