only with change can we fond true innovation. as it is, who is to say what the best environment would be. personally, i would support such adoptions.

@lyricsninja - As a first choice? You support it knowing that homosexuals do not have the healthiest of lifestyles on average? Actually we do know what the best and most successful lifestyles are. A homosexual lifestyle is not one of them

It would be best to place children in the best an most traditional homes possible... if those families are willing to actually adopt the children. Trouble is there are more kids in foster care, etc., than there are good families who are willing to take them. Traditional families in a position to adopt keep choosing infants, going to other countries to adopt, spending money on fertilization treatments, etc. Meanwhile foster kids are stuck in the system. There are good foster families... but there are also TERRIBLE ones that take kids basically for the check. I can't imagine how many of these kids must suffer. I personally seriously plan to adopt someday, and instead of looking all over the place outside of the US for children, I hope to adopt a child that would otherwise languish in foster care. But that's a pretty difficult thing, and most "good families" don't want to take the challenge on. Frankly, if there are gay couples willing to give a loving (if imperfect) home to a child who otherwise wouldn't have one, it's still much, much better than letting the kid languish in the system.

@trunthepaige - would it be fair to say black couples should not be allowed to due to more of the black population being below the poverty level? perhaps we should take a step to muslims not being able to simply because of the 9/11 attacks and the possible hatred the child may endure after being adopted?

if you look at only statistics, all you see is numbers. there needs to be more to it than that.

i suppose this comes from my problem with discrimination based on a persons lifestyle, or race, or creed, etc etc.

@WomanOfLight - 

My position exactly. Though I am planing on having a couple of kids. My bother is adopted, so that is something i would think about. And he was an older adoption, the type that ends up in foster homes

Well, I'm a little mixed.  Everyone has their own "pet sin," and in that sense, I don't know that homosexual couples are any worse than any other set of parents.  However, most people who are trying to adopt receive screening for what I would call the more public addictions- Alchoholism, use of tobacco and drugs, and the various other dysfunctions.  If adoption agencies were looser and cheaper, there would be a lot more kids with hetero parents.

I've seen a few interviews with gay adopters, and inevitably the person asks them "Are you going to raise him/her to be gay?"  It also seems to be inevitable that they respond "I'm going to raise him/her as my son/daughter.  Are you going to raise your kids to be straight?"  Now, there are some that think most hetero parents don't raise their kids with a sexual preference in mind, and the gay people are saying they wouldn't either.  But come on, what straight parent isn't at least a little surprised when their kid comes out?  I don't approve of parents who raise their kids to be okay with porn, drugs, deceit, premarital sex, etc.  Many of the kids will find these things on their own, but your parents should not be the source of your addiction or depravity, whatever it may be.  So no, I don't approve of homosexual parenting, because I believe those parents would be sending their kids the wrong message.

Attack away, liberal America.

@lyricsninja - Actually economics should not be taken into consideration, once the income is above the poverty line. There needs to be criteria are you saying there should be none? And I will just treat the rascal question as a red herring

@WomanOfLight - do you think maybe the problem doesn't lie with the parents choosing infants half as much as the fact that most adoptions cost amounts that only the wealthy can afford, and the wealthy are used to luxury?  I would adopt a teenager- maybe not right now, since they probably wouldn't view a 20 year old as a father figure, but maybe when I get closer to 30...

@WomanOfLight - I concur with you. And Paige, I saw your comments on the Featured Blogger's site.

@trunthepaige - it was a semi red herring, but true enough on some level. there should be standards, that much is true, but i dont think the standards should discount homosexual couples. what i was attempting to point out, and badly at that, is that there is much much more to a couple that is trying to adopt than just income or statistics saying "on average this lifestyle" or "being that they are of this race or religion makes  them more prone to blah blah". some of the best parents as candidates for adoption could very well be in a homosexual arrangement. while some of the worst could come in the form of a traditional couple. and vice versa of course. again there is so much more to the situation than a clear cut right or wrong to me, there is a lot of discretion needed.

Talk about a tough question.  I think that if homosexual couples want a child are deemed OK to adopt, I think it's cool

They do have the best and longest track records? I wasn't aware of that...

I am going with a family is better then no family... I don't think that traditional is always  better...

I don't really have a problem with homosexual adoption. But the psychological, emotional, and teasing  issues the child may face is something to consider. Homosexuality isn't openly accepted, while maybe it should for humanitary reasons, little kids in elementary school aren't going to ease up on bullying if you have two dads.

I think the best answer is, as long as a child goes to a loving safe home, that's all that matters.

If at all possible, children should go in a nuclear home: mother + father + kids. That is not to say that single parents or a homosexual couple would not make exceptional parents; as individuals they are every bit as loving and capable as parents in a heterosexual relationship. Yet, the stability provided for a child that comes from growing up in a home that fits the social norms seems more desirable than one that does not. That is the honest truth. While many people are accepting of non-traditional family situations, not everyone is as open-minded and consequently the children may have to suffer because of that. It doesn't seem fair to put a child through that. I don't care if they learn to become tougher because of it, no child should have to suffer hardships unnecessarily. Is it better than no parents? Well that is a no brainer, two loving parents regardless of their sexual orientation is infinitely better than none.

I've read both your comment on the featured blog, and I've read your post here. You mentioned in your comment on the featured blog that she should cite the studies that she's using. Well, of course, you should do the same if you're going to make a case for it.

I do say that we're all a little biased on the subject (aren't we always on every subject?), I cannot sit here and specifically say that I disagree or concur with your argument, or the featured blogger's views for that matter. Show me a multitude of studies that agree that it's alright and doesn't adversely effect the child in question. But at the same token, neither you, nor she have shown me (or anyone else for that matter) any basis for your arguments.

Also, I'm not saying this to sound like an evil, hoity-toity, instigator, I'm saying these things because I'm interested in seeing the studies both of you cite.

Although, I have found a couple of links for you just in the past thirty minutes of sifting past the googled FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC news stories regarding the matter.

The first is actually an American government website that cites studies which favor gay adoption. As such, the website is actually in favor for it as well. They have cited their findings at the bottom of the page in footnotes. Granted the studies are from 1990 and 1992 respectively, their validities might come into question as they are both over fifteen years old.

However, in 2006 the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute issued findings that children adopted by homosexuals fare just as well as children adopted by heterosexuals. The study has come under attack as sheer propaganda by conservative and certain religious groups since they did receive funding from the Human Rights Campaign, so they could have been swayed and slightly biased toward the gays (but do you think Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family would have devoted any funding toward that study?).

Now, in regards to the "pet sin" or what have you that was referenced earlier (please keep in mind that these comments are not meant to be attacking you, your view, or whatever you will... they're just points for your collective consideration). Sin is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "an offense against religious or moral law." So, therefore, to us Christians, sin is defined as, "the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, and other people, and with all creation."

Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, it's important to look at the Bible (as many do in this type of argument). James 2:10 clearly states, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails at one point has become accountable for all of it" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible [NOAB]). Also, Romans 3:22-23, "...For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (NOAB). Ok, so, we've now established that all sins are equal in God's eyes, and that we've all sinned at some point and we all, collectively, are not worthy of God's glory. Moving on...

Romans 2:1-3 states, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, 'We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.' Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?" (NOAB).

Therefore, let's put all the pieces of the puzzle together, and keep in mind, I'm not claiming to be the end all, be all, authoritative word on the Word, but merely sharing my opinion. All people have sinned, and all sins are equal in God's eyes. Also, when you judge someone for something inappropriate, you're brining judgment on yourself; you're not God, and you never will be, but you're acting as if you wish to be Him. Well, that's what I got from it...

In conclusion, for someone to say that homosexuals shouldn't adopt because they are sinful is Biblically wrong. Because we are taught that every one sins, and that all sins are equal in God's eyes. As such, who are we to say that homosexuals should or should not be allowed to adopt? Doesn't God love them just as much as he loves you? And what about the children? God especially loves little children (as was evident when Jesus had His ministry) and wouldn't someone in federal houses of legislation and in state houses be wrong to deny children a home?

Another thought to ponder: Have you prayed about it? I see a lot of talk on the matter about this, that, and the other, but have you actually sat down, turned off all of your distractions, and actually prayed about this issue? Actually prayed until you were certain without a shadow of a doubt that God was telling you that your stance on this issue was the valid stance?

May God bless you all...
-Jordan

I think it's a case-by-case basis. Of course, not all traditional familes are going to be "ideal" or what is best for a child to be raised.

I love those arguments that are emotional only.
I like logic, I'm a person of it.
But I like seeing emotion win at times, even when it is completely and utterly wrong.
Just to see something different.

Traditional homes should always be given precedence.  

Of course I think you should put children in the best homes possible, but I don't think that best and most traditional necessarily go hand in hand. To randomly assume traditional is best is lacking some substance. I, personally, don't know many homosexual couples with children to compare to, but I do know some pretty whacked "traditional" families. I honestly don't think it has one thing to do with family structure. I know some great people who were raised by a single parent. I know some great people raised by the traditional two parents. I know some great people raised by their grandparents. It isn't about who raised them, but how. 

I believe that we should first try to place kids with traditional heterosexual couples not because of any stereotyping about homosexuals but because I believe, and I have seen studies supporting though I have forgotten where, that a child will emotionally develop the best and healthiest relationships, both romantic and platonic, with both sexes by having parents of both sexes present in the homes.  Based on that I also believe that we should try to avoid letting singles adopt children.

I remember arguing incessantly in an english class that I took which focused on persuasive writing that any argument based on emotions could not be an effective means of informing anyone about anything as my professor stated but that it could only serve as a means of propaganda.  Of course my point of view is somewhat influenced by the fact that emotional appeals are wasted on me since I don't have a normal respect for emotions due in part to the fact that I don't understand emotions and in part to the fact that I recognize the inherent stupidity of emotions and their ability to mislead people and interfere with their well-being.

@mrcolorful - emotional based arguments I feel them so i understand why they work. but they don't work on me. seeing through such arguments is a very important skill to learn, if you do not want to be manipulated

@trunthepaige - It is definitely a good skill to have.  However, the fact that I don't understand them at all has caused me some trouble on more than one occasion.

Ha, okay, I'm pretty liberal, but anyone who thinks that two guys or two gals would be the BEST PARENTING OPTION are really pushing it.

For once we agree Paige. I think that gay couples are better parents than none at all. But there are obviously a few fallacies with homosexual parents, and it isn't as ideal as a man and woman setup.

I mean, I myself wouldn't be who I am today without a mother and a father. My dad taught me to be tough. My mother taught me to love. And it helped me to differentiate the genders, and know how to treat them. Some people say sex roles are stereotypical and demeaning- I think it sets a nice contrast that points out the pros and cons and why both genders should be deeply respected.

And let's face it...if two guys are acting as father figures, or two women are acting as mother figures, each person will try to be the better one. It's sort of like when divorced women get a new boyfriend and then the new boyfriend tries to be overly fatherly just so he feels like he's contributing. I submit that with two of the same gender, you will have a person very confused about which person to turn to in tough times.

But still better than not having a home to go back to, I think.

I think children need a male and female role model, but I agree a stable home with a gay couple is better than a foster home environment or even a unstable heterosexual home

I live in Australia and adoption here is much stricter, harder and expensive. As far as I know there are not many children in Australia to adopt, and to adopt a child from overseas costs up to $30,000. Some of the new stricter rules overseas adoption includes are that the parents be Christian, married, and even prove their infertility status.

I don't think a homosexual from Australia would be allowed to adopt, as well as a single woman or a single man. Concerning overseas adoption, an article in my local paper said:

"...many countries had experienced a large increase in the number of applications. That resulted in tighter application criteria, including more restrictions on the health, age, marriage status and infertility of applicants. China made their criteria much stricter about 12 months ago. They have strict criteria around health, education, income and age,'' Ms Beare said. Taiwan and the Philippines have criteria that both people must be practising Christians. Most require people to be legally married, many require that to be for a period of time."

I don't know about the criteria in your country. In Australia homosexuals are not allowed to get married (and if you are not married you cannot adopt). As a Christian, I won't pretend that I like homosexuality, and if it were up to me when I am running an orphanage I would say no to homosexual couple. However saying that, every person wishing to adopt should have a police check, be screened and provide evidence and statutory declarations about their relationship and characters. I don't know if a homosexual would be a good parent, nor do I know if some others wishing to adopt would be good, that is why you would need many interviews, evidence and police checks to make sure.