AJ,

"It is presumptuous to assume that all children would be better off with two parents of the opposite sex...."

All children are better off with parents of the opposite sex and to assume so is not presumptuous at all, in fact they wouldn't exist without such parents.

Is Mise,

You appear to have missed a lot of the discussion that has gone on in this thread. So rather than repeating myself yet again, please, enlighten me as to why all children are better off with two parents of the opposite sex?

Dear A J Philips,

I don't really know what to say to you so I'll start
by Thanking You for your advice. I am not against abortion,
euthanasia, or homosexuality. And I can't really explain to
you why I am having such difficulty with same-sex couples
being allowed to adopt children.

Perhaps this will pass as you suggest once I do more
research into the issues involved.

I'll let you know.

Again Thank You for your understanding.

Dear Foxy,

As a heterosexual, I really don't give much of a toss about issues relating to homosexuals, any more than I would to heavy-drinkers or -smokers: yes, it's legal, but I don't have to like it. And I certainly don't have to go in to bat for it, there are so many other issues which are far more important: the protection of the Mary River cat-fish, for example.

As well, being rather simple-minded, I assume marriage is between a man and a woman. End of. If people want some sort of marriage-like relationship, and they are not a man and a woman, then invent another term. It can't be that hard.

As for homosexuals adopting, it should be no real issue for lesbians: one or both of them can go off and have a fling, come back pregnant, have their babies and raise them together. End of. I wish them well, I really do.

As for homosexual blokes adopting, that really doesn't make the slightest sense to me: is it yet another wedge to broaden out the break-up of modern Enlightenment/capitalist society ? I don't know, and don't care that much. I simply don't see the point - given that adoption is so difficult for normal couples - ['normal'? go for it], I don't see how it arises. Play the game, cop the rules.

There are fifty million refugees around the world, through no fault of their own, often totally destitute - and some comfortable white middle-class intellectuals want to f@rt around about same-sex adoptions: for Christ's sake, get a grip on reality.

Thank you, Foxy,

Love always,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't see myself as - some "middle-class intellectual,"
but Thank You for the compliment.
I simply thought this would be an interesting topic
for a discussion - that's all.

So you're more concerned about the preservation
of the Mary River cat-fish than the issue of same-sex
couples being allowed to adopt?
Fair enough.

However, Thanks for coming here and commenting anyway.
you betcha!

A J Philips, "Some children may actually respond better to two parents of the same sex. It is presumptuous to assume that all children would be better off with two parents of the opposite sex, or that it even matters at all"

The limitations of the research you cited were not discussed. It is expected that over time other researchers will endeavour to test the conclusions. Although the conclusions are always far more limited and cautious that is reported in the media and by advocates.

However the results may question the accepted positive stereotype of women as always the best parents and carers of offspring, and the negative stereotyping of fathers by feminists as being far less concerned about, emphatic to, or able to care for their offspring than mothers.

There are feminist posters here who would argue that fathers should never be expected to have the same bond with their progeny as mothers. Further, that it should not matter to a man that he was misled on fatherhood, whereas a mother (and the child!) is certain to be seriously affected and harmed if and where her biological child was ever accidentally swapped for another (even for minutes).

There will be interesting times ahead.