Refuting fundamentalists

[Esquilax]

I think this is a sidestep to the question I asked. If you want to argue with me you can say that homosexual relationships are not ideal, but they are available when the ideal (biological parents) is not.

I think the better question is, why are we phrasing this issue in terms of the best possible configuration exclusively, when we do this with no other issue of morality or equality? If we were seeking only for the ideal, why stop at just biological heritage? For one thing, if this issue was about producing the happiest, healthiest children alone, then the majority of biological parents also wouldn't fit the bill. Given the large number of additional factors that never get pulled into this argument when we get to statistics, like the divorce rate, mortality rate, levels of abuse and so on, it's clear that this argument is agenda driven and not at all about the ultimate wellbeing of the children. It would be applied consistently, if that were the case.

Want some statistics? Studies show that levels of child abuse increase with religious fundamentalism; if we were to apply this same argument across the board, this would mean that religious parentage would be a last resort too... but I don't see anyone making the statistics argument regarding gays making that claim.

Probably because they're mostly religious themselves.