Conclusion
A wise and compassionate society always comes to the aid of children in motherless or fatherless families, but a wise and compassionate society never intentionally subjects children to such families. But every single same-sex home would do exactly that, for no other reason than that a small handful of adults desire such kinds of families.
There is no research indicating such homes will be good for children. In fact the data show us that the family experimentation we have subjected children to over the past 30 years has all failed to improve human well-being in any important way. What makes us think more of it will make the situation any better? It will only make life for our children dramatically worse.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
SS men....where have I heard that before?
Why do people keep comparing homosexuality to the Nazis? Don't you know that homosexuals were one of the groups sent to the gas chambers by the Nazis?
The only social experiment that we are doing that is undermining families in this country is economic. We have reduced wages in this country to the point that one person cannot support a household anymore leaving kids to fend for themselves or at daycare most of the time. We have increased class sizes to unmanageable levels because we can’t afford (or don’t want to) to pay teachers and when we do notice problems with our children getting help is next to impossible unless you have thousands of dollars you can part with to pay for it.
Most of us ignore reality thinking we know what a typical family looks like or is suppose to look like. We ignore what our children are really doing when they are out of our sight and refuse to take responsibility when they don’t turn out the way we think they should. There is always someone or something else to blame, TV, video games, drugs, how about we blame ourselves for a change.
Why is it that all of these arguments concerning gays, marriage, and parenthood are always waged by religious organizations? Why if there was any legitimacy at all to any of this we don’t have secular agreement. I respect the right of every individual to believe what they want but don’t state your superstition as fact.
None of Focus on the Families arguments have any bearing on the argument. They say kids are better off in married 2 parent households with their biological parents. This is most likely true but the kids we're talking about have already been put up for adoption by their biological parents. This is no longer an option for them. The question we need to answer is whether they're better off in a gay household than an orphanage or bouncing from house to house in foster care. Nobody can argue that foster care or an orphanage is better than a loving home, whether the parents are straight, gay, black, white, religious atheist or anything else.
They also argue that divorce is bad for children. No kidding! Again, that has no bearing on the argument. Since we won't let same sex partners marry they can't possibly get divorced. Seems like, if anything, this is an argument for same sex adoption.
I'd argue that anything that gets children out of the foster system and out of orphanages and into a loving home is a positive step for the children.
I have no Idea whether it's better for a child to be raised by a homosexual or heterosexual couple but my gut feeling is there is no reason why a child raised by a Gay couple shouldn't be just as well adjusted as one raised by a traditional family.
Fundamentally same sex marriage is based on the rejection of the other sex. It is not in the interest of society to support that concept.
Discussing if an abandoned child would be better in a same sex home than whitout a home missing the point and the long term consequences.
It is the same with divorces. We cant use the exceptions to justify them because we ended up with no fault divorces laws and broke the heart of 42 millions children. Some of them after seeing their parents separating are now choosing the homosexual lifestyle.
And now we are discussing same sex marriages. We need ot go back to the causes and stop trying to fix the symptoms.
Quite simply, your premise is completely wrong. Same sex marriage is based on love for another human being, not rejection of anything. It is preposterous to imply that homosexuals by nature have ill feelings toward those to whom they are not attracted sexually. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't heterosexual marriage be based on the rejection of one's own sex?
It is you who are missing the point; how do we address the causes of the abandonment of children? I do think that a child's biological parents should take responsibility, but life's not that simple. So please, elaborate on the causes of abandoned children and how to address them.
I believe that somewhere along the way someone's emotional development can be altered or misdirected.
Same sex love is fruitless and cannot multiply. There is no descendance and no future blood lineage.
In the case of 2 magnets the + side reject the + side but join the - side.
Do not just disreguard what I am saying lightly.
It is the same with children. When I hear an adult saying: I do not like children but I love dogs or my cat is like my baby. I wander what happened in their life for them to speak that way.
The issue of abandonned children is a separate subject. In any case, some studies show that when children are raised by homosexuals, the chance for them to become homosexual or bisexuals increase 7X.(from 2% to 14% of the population). We are just increasing the problem of homsexuality
Do we have to create new organisations that will provide a mother or a father figure for these children like big borthers or big sister.
I do no buy the idea that a lesbian will play Dad while her partner will play mom successfully
We are just multiplying the problem for these children and the suffering that homosexuals say they endure because of their condition.
Still in order to satisfy your request for me to answer your question, I like to say the following.
I do no know the specific data but I hear that 500,000 children are in the family services' care.
250,000 or more are still connected to their original families and half of the 250,000 left are not small babies but are more dificult to adopt because they are older or have been abused or hurt in some fashion.
The answer is to raise the consciousness of the whole country on this issue big time and mobilise all the goodness in the USA to tackle this problem.
Most people are not aware of it.
Instead of adopting children, people with same sex attraction should be helped in healing themselves.
I'm not taking anything you are saying lightly, simply frightening. The problem I have with the claims you are making is that they are inextricably bound to your system of belief. You are bringing to the argument the assumption that the purpose of human life is procreation, and that's not a belief that everyone holds. In fact, some would say that homosexuality is a perfectly natural measure for the purpose of slowing population growth in an already overpopulated group (I don't actually support this explanation, just an example). Some people have children of their own, and others don't. Having children is not a matter of right and wrong.
As far as people who love animals over human beings, I don't know why they believe what they do, and more importantly, I really don't care. As I said, some people choose to have children, others don't and value other things.
I don't expect to change your mind on the matter, but your characterization of homosexuality as a "problem," is just deplorable. It's not a problem. I wish I could make the point more clear, but while you may not think homosexuality is for you, it isn't objectively wrong. To be different is not to be inferior.
Nobody needs to "play" anything to raise a child. People can be themselves and have a well adjusted, healthy child, even when there isn't somebody doing "dad" things or "mom" things. This also gets to the point that you are bringing in the element of gender roles. What does it mean to "play Dad"? In our society, we have learned to accept some "man things" and some "woman things," but the fact is, virtually all of these divisions are arbitrary and unnecessary.
Next, please don't offer me statistics without citation (2% to 14%). Sorry, but I'm not just going to take your word for it. Also, your clever little magnet analogy is a nice way to simplify your argument for people who can't understand what you are saying in the first place, but it provides nothing new, so I will take that part lightly.
As far as your solution, I think you'd be surprised at how many people are aware of this problem, but do nothing about it. Just raising awareness won't make it go away.
By no means do I expect to convince you, because I think you need to take small steps towards the realm of respecting others before you can actually embrace those that are different from you. I don't think you are a bad person, and I apologize if I am coming off harsh. I hope you can treat these matters objectively and try to avoid allowing personal feelings and beliefs to cloud your arguments. I hope you get help to heal your self of the ill feelings you have towards homosexuals.
Quote: "I don't expect to change your mind on the matter, but your characterization of homosexuality as a "problem," is just deplorable. It's not a problem."
While I agree with you there was a complete lack of tact in the way in which soleil10 has expressed their view, by any estimates, there is a significant public health risk/problem associated with homosexuality, as evidenced in these figures taken from the book 'Straight & Narrow?', (1995) Thomas E. Schmidt:
Drugs & alcohol with sex: “Whenever these studies consider connections, they show a direct correlation between the number of partners, drug use & the likelihood of unsafe sex. Specifically, a Boston study found that of 262 (homosexual) male subjects, 49% used drugs with sex, 9% weekly; 57% used alcohol with sex, 9% weekly. By comparison, in the general population 8.6% of men regularly used alcohol & 1.1% any drug before or during sex.”
Alcohol: “The current consensus of researchers is that about 30% of homosexuals (both male & female) are problem drinkers, as compared to 10% of the general population.”
Depression: “Depression is another serious mental disorder faced by a disproportionate number of male homosexuals. Two studies (previously cited in book) combine to show that 40% of male homosexual subjects had a history of major depressive disorders (compared to 3% of males generally).”
Suicide: “Jay & Young (The gay report - 1979) found 18% of male homosexuals & 23% of female homosexuals had attempted suicide (compared to 3 % of male heterosexuals & 11% of female heterosexuals).”
Paedophilia: “Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual. Further, since homosexual paedophiles victimize far more children (average 150 each) than do heterosexual paedophiles (average 20 each), approximately 80% of paedophilic victims are boys who are molested by adult males.”
STD’s: “By comparison to even the most promiscuous segment of the general population, the male homosexual 75% lifetime STD incident rate & 40% annual STD incident rate are remarkable. Among those in the general population who had more than twenty-one lifetime partners, 40% report any infection in their lifetime. 6% of those who had more than five partners report an infection in the previous year. Overall, the general population has a 16.9% lifetime STD incident rate & 1.6% for previous twelve months.”
The book points out that these STD rates should not come as a surprise because from a anatomical point of view, the cellular makeup & other characteristics of the vagina are designed to take the penis & this is not the case for the anus. (Obviously anal intercourse is not confined to the homosexual population.)
I find it even more concerning that 'political correctness’ means those who research such facts can find it hard to get the backing to do so & others who try to present such facts as those outlined above, are labelled 'homophobic' for doing so.
“Across a diverse array of assessments, we found that the personal, family, and school adjustment of adolescents living with same-sex parents did not differ from that of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Consistent with the findings of earlier research (e.g., Huggins, 1989), we found that adolescent self-esteem did not vary as a function of family type. In addition, we found no differences as a function of family type in measures of personal adjustment, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety; in measures of school adjustment, such as academic achievement, trouble in school, or feelings of school connectedness; or in measures of the qualities of family relationships, such as autonomy, care from adults and peers, neighborhood integration, or parental warmth. The clarity of results from this broad array of assessments strengthens our confidence that adolescents living with same-sex parents were functioning well in many domains, both at home and at school.” p. 1895
“Most adolescents in our sample reported having had a romantic relationship in recent months, but only a minority reported having had sexual intercourse; there were no significant differences in this regard as a function of family type.” p. 1895
“An unexpected aspect of our results was the finding that adolescents' feelings of connectedness at school varied as a function of family type. Adolescents living with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected to school than did those living with opposite-sex parents. Inasmuch as school connectedness among adolescents has been associated with fewer problem behaviors and greater emotional well-being (Resnick et al., 1997), this finding suggests that adolescents with same-sex parents might be expected to show more favorable adjustment. For measures of adjustment such as self-esteem and depressive symptoms, however, we found no effects of family type. Consequently, the best interpretation of this intriguing finding remains unclear.” p. 1896
However, we cannot conclusively say here that (1) same-sex parents are just as good for their children (due to small population size and the fact that "good parents" might be a result of other things like community, etc.) or (2) same-sex parents are just as mentally stable as opposite-sex parents.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Violent crimes have decreased, meaning that the trend towards the slight decrease in sexually oriented hate crimes might be a result of crimes decreasing across the board as opposed to more sexual-oriented-based tolerance.
I wasn't aware that cross posting was a crime. I'll keep raising the issue of the high physical/emotional health risks of homosexuality whenever others in the back & forth of this debate keep ignoring/overlooking this issue & presenting/promoting homosexuality as a positive/healthy alternative - as previously stated, nothing could be further from the truth.
Your reference to hate crimes related to sexual orientation actually supports my position if anything, on closer examination of the figures - eg. Number of victims of male homosexual hate crimes - in 1997 - 927 victims / in 2000 - 1089 victims / 2002 - 984 / 2003 - 910 / 2004 - 902 / 2006 - 913. So with the exception of the yr 2000 (&2002 / 2006 to a lesser extent) there has been a downward trend in this type of crime. The same is true for female homosexual hate crimes - in 1997 - 236 victims / 2000 - 230 / 2002 - 221 / 2003 - 230 / 2004 - 212 / 2006 - - 202. When you account for the fact that the American population has increased during the same timeframe by approx 20 million - this can only be seen as a downward trend.
Those numbers, as I have already argued, are not statistically significant, because we've seen a downward trend in all crime. Those numbers are not related to less homophobia, but to a drop in total crime.
Cool. If you can cross-post, I can cross-post too. (Oh yeah, and you have comments waiting in the other place you made this post.)
"Perhaps the people polled were -not- chosen at random. Perhaps the people polled were pulled from parts of the country where promiscuity, drug use, alcohol, etc. were already rampant. Did the study report their findings on opposite-sex couples within their sample?
Furthermore, promiscuity, drug use, alcohol, etc. could very well have been the result of homosexuality being perceived as a social stigma, in which case -homosexuality- is not causing the promiscuity, etc. but -social stigmas-.
Or perhaps those are linked to lacking marriage. Are there studies that report these same variables with married and unmarried opposite-sex couples? I don't find this one to be a far cry from the truth either, because homosexuals would be promiscuous as a result of not needing to stay in a marriage.
I -will- be satisfied with data once the data is sufficient and can counterbalance some of the data I've found. Until then, I don't think you can draw your conclusions without sticking the word "premature" in front of them."
Furthermore, it was demonstrated that some of the studies cited actually came from people polled within AIDS clinics and the like.
Personally, I think hate crimes are a decent measure of how society responds to homosexuality: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm (Table 1 for each year under Hate Crimes section) As you'll notice, hate crimes have neither had a dramatic increase or drop since 1995, suggesting that tolerance may only be getting -slightly- better (if we account for the population increase, though we have to counterbalance for cities lost within the samples). Furthermore, you and I both know that there's going to be a time-lag in the feedback system here. Information isn't spread instantaneously; people don't change their perception of themselves overnight.
As for the data I've collected, it revolves around -parenting-, and to infer that -parenting- is closely enough related to -mental stability-... I don't think there's a close enough connection. In any case, I pulled the information from here: Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson. Child Development, 2004, Volume 75, Number 6, Pages 1886-1898.
In the introduction, the author cites various other studies which I'm not particularly interested in, though the studies contend that same-sex parents have no effect on children's self esteem.
I believe that the study only used forty-four families, though, so you'll have to realize that the sample might be too small and not representative of the community.
“The results of the present study, which is the first based on a large national sample of adolescents living with same-sex couples, revealed that on nearly all of a large array of variables related to school and personal adjustment, adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show favorable adjustment when they perceived more caring from adults and when parents described close relationships with them. Thus, as has been reported in studies of children with lesbian mothers (e.g., Chan et al., 1998), it was the qualities of adolescent-parent relationships rather than the structural features of families (e.g., same vs. opposite-sex parents) that were significantly associated with adolescent adjustment (Golombok, 1999; Patterson, 2000).” p. 1895
The data I have previously presented is that homosexuality should not be presented as a healthy alternative choice, because it clearly presents significant physical/emotional health risks.
As the author of the same book says - "The point in bringing it out is only to explore the implications of suffering for personal morality. Or, to put it in the form of a question: Does homosexual behaviour incur a sufficient risk of harm to the self or others to call it wrong on health grounds alone?"
The data you have presented above is focused on the rather unrelated issue of the ability/outcomes of same sex couples to parent/parenting children.
That's interesting. I thought this was a debate regarding whether "children with same-sex parents [are] at a disadvantage".
Regardless, you once again cannot attribute all of those to homosexuality alone, just as you cannot attribute Africans to sickle cell anemia or Mormons to bigotry.
Being African doesn't automatically give you sickle cell anemia, yet Africans have a higher proportion of sickle cell anemia than other races around the world. Furthermore, at least in the US, Africans (or African Americans) commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime than any other race. Would you then infer that being African automatically makes you sickly and violent and therefore is not a suitable lifestyle?
Similarly, some LDS churches were found to spend millions of dollars to support California's Prop 8. Can I then infer that all LDS churches are simply against LGBT persons? Can I extend that further to say that, since LDS churches tend to support this kind of intolerance, they're angry? And can I then say that Mormon lifestyles are unsuitable because they make you angry?
I am sorry to say but since the beginning of time the fruit of love between a man and a woman comes out as a child. It is not a question of being for procreation or trying to save the environment through homosexuality. That is way to intellectual of an explanation
The child is from both parents, looks like both parents. The child is in the father and the father is in the child. Same as for the mother.
Anyone who go through that experience feels that it is a miracle.
For me the issue of homosexuality is wrong. It is no about being different. I do not think that there is a person on the face of the earth who has not stuggled with her or his sexuality. It is not an exclusivity of people dealing with same sex attactions.
In my personal beliefs, I do have a reason for this situation. That is not the subject of this post.
I do beliefs that men (masculin) and women (feminin) express their love different for their children in a complementary way. We all experience that. Women can see from early age that boys and girls are different.
Gender roles are affected by the culture people live in but they are real. People who ignore them suffer a lot in their marriages and learn it the hard way. You can recreate the world to fit you personal views.I think that you are fighting the universe itself, not me.
I do not have ill feelings towards homosexuals. It does not mean that I have to agree with you just to please you.
On the issue of adoption, it is not on top of the list of the causes celebre like breast cancer or aids and others.
The study on the increase in homosexual behaviors if someone was raised in a ss home was made available by focus on the family. I do not have a copy with me. It is available on the web. It does make a lot of common sense since children do imitate what they parents do.
The last thing I wanted to mention was your characterization of gender roles. Obviously we all know that boys and girls are different, but I think these differences are often greatly exaggerated, and sometimes entirely made up. I think most of the ways men and women express themselves differently are primarily a learned set of behaviors, not innate ones. "People who ignore them suffer a lot in their marriages..." is also a very telling statement, but I really don't have the energy to get into it. I don't intend to recreate the world or fight the universe, I just don't think we should impose our own beliefs onto others. If a man or woman wants to express him/herself a way that is different from what we normally see, that does not mean it is wrong or inferior, just different.
I'm sorry you'd rather not have an intellectually rigorous debate, but thank you for reading what I've had to say.
Well, this country is quite open and tolerant.
We have seen during the last 4 weeks how intolerant the gay activits and been to the point of anarchy, retaliation, retribution, revenge, mocking and ridiculing their opponents in the most viscious way
Intolerance and imposing someone's own belief by silencing others through fear is for the gay community to deal with. I will never forget what I saw with my own eyes.
The experiences are marked deeply in my soul. I do not expect that it is the end of it but now my eyes are open and I am drawing the line for the protection of my family.
People can do what they want with their own life but they cant steal or hijack the core values of millions of people behind their back using some judgeocracy process and start a rampage if they do not get their way.
The debate is at the very different level now. Many people feel under assault by a ruthless mob and hopefuly will not take it anymore. I know I am not.
Sorry to be direct.
First and foremost, I don't really agree that this country as a whole is open and tolerant, but that debate is really for another time and place.
I was not trying to make a comment about the status of the tolerance of a nation, merely something that I have seen from some people.
I think we need to be very careful about how we talk about things like the recent events in California. I have been discussing the matter a lot with friends (on both sides of the issue), and I have seen a lot of backlash against the "gay community" for what's been going on.
I ask that you please try to remember that the actions of a reprehensible few do not represent an entire group of people. This goes for all sides, by the way, because I have also heard the terrible generalizations made against mormons and other religious people in this debate.
I'm a little unclear what you mean by "Intolerance and imposing someone's own belief by silencing others through fear is for the gay community to deal with," but I hope that you realize that some of the awful tactics used by some of the activists recently are not new, and have been used by members of countless other groups throughout the history of this nation.
As far as the act the actual matter of Prop 8, I don't really know why you brought this up, but I will go along with it anyway. What exactly do you mean when you say you are "drawing the line for the protection of my family."?
From a purely legal standpoint, Prop 8 really shouldn't have been on a ballot, because it is a violation of Equal Protection. Homosexuals are recognized legally as a suspect class, which is exactly for whom the Equal Protection Clause is designed. The fact is that whether or not two people of the same sex marry has no direct effect on anyone else, and doesn't threaten anyones rights or beliefs. If you think it does in some way, feel free to try me.
To say that people feel under assault by a ruthless mob is too true; unfortunately, you don't realize who is under assault and who's been doing the assaulting for the years and years.
If there had been backlash against the gay community, the media would have been blowing the trumpet of hate crime everywhere.
Meanwhile gay activists where committing hate crimes all day long, The media and not even one politician said a thing. They were supporting it indirectly.
The fact that a man in a black robe creates a select class is ridiculous. I will be the first one to support his recall. When one person makes retarded decisions you take it for absolute and then later when 5.5 millions voters vote for the second time, it is not acceptable.
There is no chance in a million that gay activits are going to redefine my marriage because of their desir for privilege rights and superiority.
To say that what I do has no effect on anybody else is totally selfcentered and what I would expect for an immature child. Of course it does.
The big financial crisis in Wallstreet was foremost a moral and ethical crisis. Immorality has consequences. America is now facing the result of over 40 years of this sewer culture.
It is going to get worse. After people realise that Obama and the politicians cant save the situation, I would hope that Americans will look into their conscience for what went wrong in this country.
I cant see any other solution
I can see it clearly. Just wait and see. There is the law of cause and effect
What I meant by drawing the line is that I consider myself and my family in a self defense position with a domestic enemy/terrorist.
It sound strong but I can see how many people are plotting to undermine the great foundation that made America successful
I apologize for my lack of clarity earlier. When I said backlash, I was referring to sentiment, not violence or anything like that. I'll give you an analogy: Let's say there's two children, one is bigger and stronger and the other is very small and weak. The big one, about once a week beats up the small one and steals his lunch money. One day, the smaller child gets a particularly bad beating and hits the large behemoth back. With absolute surprise, the bigger of the two says, "see he's a bully."
However, I digress. A suspect class is a group that is considered more like to be subject to discrimination. While yes, a judge probably created the term, I would think that common sense would tell you that homosexuals certainly fall into this category. In fact, this term only really matters with regard to the level of scrutiny placed on equal rights claims by the court, so it doesn't give anybody any advantage over others. Trust me, I don't simply accept whatever a judge says as truth, and, believe it or not, I disagree with their decisions frequently.
As far as your marriage goes, guess what: your marriage would never have changed, whether or not homosexuals could marry. Also, nobody is seeking anything better than what you've got. Homosexuals don't want superiority, they want EQUALITY. They want the same rights you enjoy without changing your rights in any way.
Now to the name calling. I never said that what a person does has no effect on others, but I'd like to give you an opportunity to specifically describe how a gay persons marriage has a direct effect on your life, other than bothering you. The financial crisis is not really a matter I'd like to discuss, but I will agree that that is a case where actions of some have effects on others (which I never disputed). I think that the root cause of that problem is the institutionalized greed in this country, which has been around a lot longer than 40 years, but as I said, I don't really think that is relevant.
This "self defense position," you mentioned, what does that mean exactly? Duct tape and bottled water? Just for my curiosity, not to further any point I'm trying to make. Also, who is this "domestic enemy/terrorist"? The gay community? While this is an important and heated issue, I ask that you please relax a little bit, and realize that you are being a bit defensive and a little inappropriate (e.g. "retarded").
Open your eyes! How would you feel if you were denied legal equality?
Stop the mistreatment of your fellow citizens!!
I think a big problem here is the different ways we are approaching this debate. You said the matters I was discussing were "[too] intellectual." I think that says a lot. It seems to me that you want to accept seemingly "obvious" truths and come to simple conclusions based on those. In terms of moral and philosophical debate (which this is), I think that is an intellectually weak way to function.
I am not going to try to convince you of anything (at least not anymore); you believe what you believe and I have no expectation of changing that.
I do think struggling with sexuality is a universal experience, but I don't really know where that applies.
What I meant by too intellectual was not that I do not believe in reason and presenting good argument
What I meant is that when intellectual debate starts to offuscate obvious and simple facts or truth,it becomes a bridge to no-where.
The agenda to erase gender for instant is one of these debat to nowhere
When the facts start to obscure what you perceive as the "truth," it might be time to reevaluate what you consider to be true, Soleil. You accept as an "obvious and simple fact" that same-gender couples cannot be as good of parents as opposite-gender couples. You refuse to hear anything different from this. So when you are presented with valid scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that they CAN and ARE, you stick your fingers in your ears and say, "Please don't confuse me with facts! I know the 'truth' already!"
This is not a particularly scientific way of engaging on an issue.
I do not agree on some of the things you consider to be obvious or simple facts. I am willing to accept very little without proof, at least in a debate. I don't intend to erase gender, just to recognize that it is mostly a socially constructed idea and therefore not entirely concrete. We can modify the way we express ourselves in terms of gender, that's all I mean.
Focus on the Family is correct in stating that taking children away from their natural parents and giving them to a homosexual couple to be raised in some bizarre social experiment would be unethical. That is not what anyone is suggesting, however. What is the question is whether children would be better off being adopted by a loving homosexual couple instead of being left to a foster home or government program in the event that no one else is there to care for them. While one could argue back and forth all day about whether being adopted by a heterosexual or homosexual couple makes a difference, and admittedly it probably does, there is little doubt that loving parents of any sexuality would be better than the alternative. The problem with this debate is that no one is willing to forget their own biases and prejudices and think about the kids. They can't seem to get past what they want for themselves or what their religion/society tells them is wrong.