Gay adoption

Indeed.

Suppose there is

1) a perfect heterosexual couple - let's rate their "parental rating" as 100

2) a perfect homosexual couple - let's say 99. Or 95. Or even 90 - does not make much difference

3) an average heterosexual couple that would rate 60-70

4) an average homosexual couple 50-60

5) A really good Forster care institution 40-50 at best

6) Average foster care institution 30-40

7) And let's not even speak about below average (shudders)

Is there any reason why 3 should be given preference over 2)? Why 5) should be given preference over 4)? Why 6) should be preferred over 2?

edited 20th Mar '11 12:27:11 AM by Beholderess

I covered this in an earlier post.... I can't speak about other counties, but here in australia there is no backlog of children to adopt.

This isn't the Baby Scope Era where there are whole orphanages there are whole overflowing with abandoned kids to grab. A married straight couple can spent literally years waiting for a child to adopt. There are more then enough parents the look after the kids as it is.

edited 20th Mar '11 12:40:03 AM by joeyjojo

Joeyjojo, I suspect there is a waiting list of people wanting to adopt a healthy baby preferably of the same racial background as themselves. I suspect that kids who are in need of adoption who do not meet those criteria have a harder time, just like they do in most other countries. Children too old to be babies any longer, for one thing.

Lets be realistic, those kids are beyond help. no one is going to adopt 'damaged goods'

edited 20th Mar '11 12:49:10 AM by joeyjojo

So nice of you, Joeyjojo, to decide that on behalf of those kids and the people who could adopt them.

Speaking of which, since this thread has basically turned into everyone else in it telling you that it's not a problem and your coming back with, "but I still don't feel it's right!", and circling around in that pattern again and again, I think I'm locking this. If anyone disagrees, PM me.