Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

I was agreeing with Jester.
If you enter a debate with an opinion based on nothing but your feelings and then when someone says 'but your feelings shouldn't dictate someone else's life' you say you never meant it that way, then what was the point of joining the debate if you have nothing to debate?
I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand your point.

I know you were agreeing with Jester. I was taking your point and using it in a different way.

Homosexuality =/= infertility.
Gay couples are not the same as mixed-species couples.

Studies and research show that having two parents of the same sex does not adversely affect the development of a child in comparison to a child, compared to a heterosexual couple; both are equally capable of raising a child well. Though, seeing as you believe children are best raised by a traditional couple, presumably you are also opposed to single people adopting?

If I suddenly withdrew your privilege to adopt, because of something you cannot change yet does not affect your ability to be a good parent, how would you feel?

I didn't say gays were infertile, I was simply stating a biological FACT that homosexual couples are incapable of reproducing without the help of third parties. This is a disadvantage that most straight couples aren't burdened with. Unfortunately we have to make difficult decisions about who is and who isn't suitable to be adoptive parents and I'm of the opinion that homosexual couples fall into the latter category. If nature/God (or whatever) had meant for homosexuals to have children they'd have been be equipped with the biological gear necessary to conceive, as they havn't I can only conclude that it's not meant to be.

If nature/God (or whatever) had meant for homosexuals to have children they'd have been be equipped with the biological gear necessary to conceive, as they havn't I can only conclude that it's not meant to be.

I didn't say gays were infertile, I was simply stating a biological FACT that homosexual couples are incapable of reproducing without the help of third parties. This is a disadvantage that most straight couples aren't burdened with. Unfortunately we have to make difficult decisions about who is and who isn't suitable to be adoptive parents and I'm of the opinion that homosexual couples fall into the latter category. If nature/God (or whatever) had meant for homosexuals to have children they'd have been be equipped with the biological gear necessary to conceive, as they havn't I can only conclude that it's not meant to be.

Gay people can have children (unless they are infertile, but that is nothing to do with their sexuality). And sexuality does not affect your ability to be a parent - or the research would not show that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their opposite-sex counterparts.
And while I agree that adopting a child is a priviledge, you wouldn't deny a straight couple the opportunity to adopt because of something outside their control that doesn't affect their ability to care for children (them both having blue eyes for example - has as much affect on your ability to raise children as being gay does). Fair enough if there is something about a particular gay couple that means that they wouldn't be good parents, they should be subject to the same checks as a straight couple - but that goes without saying.

Would you accept that a menage a trois should also be granted the right to adopt children taken into the state's care? Unfortunately we set a precedent by allowing homosexual couples to adopt so we'll end up putting vulnerable children in the middle of all sorts of weird and wacky living arrangements, it's better to just draw a clear line in the sand and allow people involved in untraditional relationships to sort their affairs out privately.

Would you accept that a menage a trois should also be granted the right to adopt? Unfortunately we set a precedent by allowing homosexual couples to adopt so we'll end up putting vulnerable children in the middle of all sorts of weird and wacky living arrangements, it's better to just draw a clear line in the sand and allow people involved in untraditional relationships to sort their affairs out privately.

Would you accept that a menage a trois should also be granted the right to adopt? Unfortunately we set a precedent by allowing homosexual couples to adopt so we'll end up putting vulnerable children in the middle of all sorts of weird and wacky living arrangements, it's better to just draw a clear line in the sand and allow people involved in untraditional relationships to sort their affairs out privately.

If a gay or lesbian couple can offer a child unconditional love, care and support - I don't have a problem with it.

There are many heterosexual couples who are unable to fulfill that criteria.

No you didn't state that, you said that gay people can't have children; gay people can have children, just not, as you said, with each other. However, the ability to biologically conceive a child with your partner has no effect on whether or not you would make a good parent. Presumably, given that they also can't have a child with their partner without the help of third parties, you don't think infertile people should be allowed to adopt?

Fertility and ability to conceive with your partner is not a reflection of your suitability to be a parent - one only has to look at the numerous shoddy heterosexual parents out there to see that.

No, if anything infertile straight couples should be given priority status when it comes to adopting because their living arrangements are more stable than couples who are able to bear children.

When nature fixes it so that the majority of gay couples are able to conceive naturally I'll be happy to reconsider my stance on the matter, up until that day though I'll be of the opinion that homosexual child rearing is both unnatural and unwanted.

No, if anything infertile straight couples should be given priority status when it comes to adopting because their living arrangements are more stable than couples who are able to bear children.

No, if anything infertile straight couples should be given priority status when it comes to adopting because their living arrangements are more stable than couples who are able to bear children.

When nature fixes it so that the majority of gay couples are able to conceive naturally I'll be happy to reconsider my stance on the matter, up until that day though I'll be of the opinion that homosexual child rearing is both unnatural and unwanted.

But why? Nature has obv fixed so they are not to have children. Who are you to go against nature?

About 50% of all married people get divorced. Stable. Yeaaaaah...

You are entitled to your opinion, but you opinion does not go along with studies that have been done in the past 30 years or so.

Well they can't produce children, and by your own logic that means it is unnatural for them to have children. You cannot say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they can't produce children (even if they can) but then say that infertile people can adopt children without having an inconsistency in your views.
And just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it is bad or unwanted. You're on the internet!

If you were a child in care and had the option of choosing between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple as adoptive parents which would you pick? And why?