I suspect, Ponde, that some of the posters here are atheists like me :) Is that your only shot ? Are you prepared to explore the crucial issues that might be raised, or simply trumpet your own views, no matter what anybody says ?

That's fine, there is no law against being a bigot :)

Joe

The question is wrong because the default is that people are allowed to do whatever they like unless prevented.

The question should therefore be: "Should, and on what grounds, be homosexual couples be prevented from adopting children?".

Some of us may not like the idea, but I can't find such legitimate grounds.

One noteworthy attempt was made by Rehctub on the grounds of the good of the child. However, as I disagree with his premises as if:
"One, not one of them ask to be born, and Two, not one of then get to choose their parents.", I cannot accept his conclusion either.

Suppose the natural parents left a will according to which if they were to die, then their children should come under the custody of uncle-couple such-and-such, then they both die in a road accident. Who has a right to deny their will?

Homosexuals are not fit to be parents. They have chosen to enter into an unnatural sexual relationship. Then why should they opt for fostering children? They can never ever satisfy the emotional needs of children. This kind of arrangement will lead to lot of social problems. Let us ban the so called homosexual mis "marriages" in the first place. It is a pity that in this materialistic world, all sorts of things are being legitimised (for individual's selfish ends) unmindful of the serious consequences of such acts in the society.

//Are you prepared to explore the crucial issues that might be raised//

I think the crucial issue that most people have is children being raised by single-gender parents. I don't see the problem. I know plenty of people who were raised by a single parent, and therefore by a single gender parent - there is no paternal/maternal influence when pater/mater is absent. If the presence of both gender role-models was essential for successful child-rearing, we would already know about it. There would be an enormous body of literature to refer to back to that clearly indicates that children suffer when primarily reared by a single gender.

If the absence of the paternal/maternal influence is such a bad thing, why don't protective services go around seizing the children of divorcees with sole custody and putting them into the care of married couples? Why don't they do the same with widows and widowers? If being raised by a single gender is highly detrimental to child's well-being, does that make widow(er)s who don't re-marry post haste child abusers?

Hi Toni,

Interesting point: is it in any way detrimental to children to be raised in a single-parent household ?

Are children raised in single-parent households any more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, or - through no fault of their own - be a burden on society ?

Actually, .......

WmTrevor,
The young man did not mention his relationship to girls or his natural parents. He treated his carers on an intellectual basis and not like a typical emotional child parent relationship - he called them John and Andy not Dad and Dad.

My wife has fostered 153 children in her lifetime and there was always an emotional bond with her expressed by these children, whether boy or girl.