SchmittVanDean: "you can't prove anything, I can't either, so I'm going to...draw a fucking irrelevent conclusion!"
how is it an irrelevant conclusion? we are debating wether homosexual adoption is an acceptable practice. i am merely arguing that being raised in a homosexual family COULD be damaging for the child.
I am so fucking funny.
it is well known that in the vast majority of cases, a child raised in a male and female family will be better off than one where they are lacking either a mother or a father. and no, a gay man is no substitute for a mother.
The initial sentence's rather misleading, in that it's well known that a child <i>generally</i> does better with two parents rather than one; as opposed to having a family missing a specific gender. At the same time, since the US kind of relies on adoptive people (both single parents and couples,) to relieve the burden on charities and the government doling out money, since a stable couple is better than a single person, and either are better than constantly switching foster parents, gay couples should at least be considered higher in consideration than potential single parents.
You then state that "there is no way to prove or disprove wether homosexual parents adversly affect children", then go on to say that you've made a decision based on "what
we do know." Would you mind telling us what
we do know which can possibly have any relevency in light of that, then?
my personal opinion is that homosexuality is mostly a psychological condition brought about by a persons environment. that said, i do not support "gay" adoption.
Got any basis for the first sentence?
Also you fail to explain the corollary for that last bit of reasoning. Gay couples cause gay children? So?