(November 19, 2013 at 9:48 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:(November 19, 2013 at 9:06 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: OK, you said that you were reading over the article and noticed that it claims children do better with their biological parents. And this for some reason means that the article has an agenda and that there is a "rat" involved, as you put it.
So, I think my question is a fair one.
Yep. Its a perfectly legitimate question.
Look at domestic violence stats for post-divorce, 'blended' families where there is a step-dad raising someone elses kids. Much higher rates of violence than for biological fathers.
I cant believe people think that non-biological adoptive/defacto parents is just as optimal as biologically-related (heterosexual) parenting.
Two gay men dont have lactating breasts. How on earth can they provide the scientifically proven benefits of maternal breast milk?
Wouldn't the relative comparison be between straight adoptive parents and gay adoptive parents?
I think it would be unusual for an adoptive mother to nurse, so that seems irrelevant to the question of whether there's an issue with placing children with adoptive parents who are gay.
