If gays were permitted to adopt orphans, then it's a short push of the toe to ensure gays can adopt full stop. Which has a direct link to dissolution of 2) above. Does the States refusal to permit this mean gays are prevented from co-habiting and raising one or others kids? No. But like I say, the State's job isn't 'micro-manage to guarantee'. The States job is to takes what steps it can to support a desired outcome.
My mum is gay and she and her partner foster children and do a pretty good job.
Not letter gays foster or adopt only serves to cut down the number of people who can foster or adopt children in need.
I can't see why someone sexual polarity should have any bearing on how well the kids turn out.
Having a gay mum never did me any haaarrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm, er sorry
State approval and support for some outcomes necessarily mean lack of State support and approval for other outcomes.
What makes youy think this is true? How will straight couples be inconvenienced by gay couples?
Rrhain writes:
And you'd be wrong. Gay people tend to take in the children nobody wants. The typical straight couple want the perfect, white infant. Gay couples are much more likely to take in children who are difficult to place.
My mum fosters people with learning and behavioural difficulties and part of the reason is because few other people will and they really need a stable home.
Which leads to the market fulfilling that demand - which leads to a structural situation in which children are produced specifically for gay (couples) meaning the right listed above is abandoned by design.
That is not true. If it was true it would have already happened with straight couples: has it?
Please provide evidence for this claim or withdraw it.
Edited by Larni, : second point
Edited by Larni, : second pint
Edited by Larni, : third point and psellnig