Refuting fundamentalists

[Zazzy]

It must also mean that women who can't breastfeed (I have known several) don't deserve their children.

My wife is one. And yet our children are happy and healthy.

This can't possibly be true. I mean, your wife couldn't breastfeed and yet your children are fine? It can't be true because then the same might be true of children raised by two men.

I know a guy who was raised by his father and his uncle (father's brother) after his mother left when he was very young- the two men and the boy lived in the same house together, and he looked at both of the men as parents. A biological two-parent family of two men- not homosexual, but both parenting a child, who turned out great.

But I guess this is bad, too? Or is it OK because the men were not in a sexual relationship?

[Doubting Thomas]

But I guess this is bad, too? Or is it OK because the men were not in a sexual relationship?

Well obviously it's OK in this instance because it wasn't a homosexual couple adopting kids for the sole purpose of indoctrinating them to be gay.

[Chas]

Really, they're using the wrong arguments. You don't need articles to know that homosexual parenting is a retarded concept.

Making assertions based on no evidence is a retarded concept.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

People forget that almost every single child in adoptive care is there because of inept heterosexual parenting (excluding caveats like deaths etc).

Given the choice, as a child in desperate need of a family, I'd take a gay couple who want to show me love over the statistically high chance of a shitty life I'd undoubtedly have being in the 'system' all my life.

[Captain Colostomy]

I don't give a shit about anything except A) a loving caretaker, and B) a child who blossoms because of A. All this crud about marriage/sexual orientation/# of parents doesn't amount to squat...other than statistics, that is.

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.

Or you can disagree, but I am going to ask for an explanation.

A loving, nurturing relationship between a parent and child is what's important. Multiple caregivers is a bonus. All other concerns are inconsequential. So yeah, I disagree.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[Doubting Thomas]

I think it would be unusual for an adoptive mother to nurse

I don't even think that would be possible unless she were pregnant herself or just gave birth.